[1. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:20] >>> I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2024. THIS IS A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE. PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> CALL THE ROLE, PLEASE. [4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Any person who wishes to comment on any agenda item on the Agenda may be heard at this time. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less, as directed by the Mayor, as this section of the Agenda is limited to thirty minutes. The City Commission will not be able to take any official actions under Comments from the Public. Speakers will address the Mayor, Commissioners, and the Public with respect. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated.] >> MAYOR HUDSON? >> PRESENT. >> THE MISSION OR BROADDRICK? COMMISSIONER GAMES? PRESIDENT C JOHNSON? CUT -- COMMISSIONER J JOHNSON? >> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC AT THIS TIME, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. AND WE WILL GIVE YOU A WARNING OF 10 SECONDS. >> YES, SIR. >> JOHN KING, 4351, WINDING PLACE, FT. PIERCE. I'M SPEAKING AS A TAXPAYER TODAY. I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE THREE THINGS I SEE ON THE LIST FOR DISCUSSION, JUST WANT TO GET MY THOUGHTS OUT. I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT TO TALK ABOUT TODAY. I'M SURE YOU GUYS HAVE YOUR OWN THOUGHTS ON WHAT'S GOING ON, HERE, BUT AS FAR AS THE STUDY OF THE CITY MANAGER, I THINK IT IS, AFTER READING THE FDL E REPORT, DISCUSSING IT WITH MY WIFE AS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, SEVERAL OTHER CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND THE PROSECUTORS, THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL FOR MS. NICK MIMMS, AND AS A TAXPAYER, I THINK WE SHOULD RELEASE HIM. AS FAR AS THE SECOND ITEM ON THERE, AFTER TWO YEARS OF THE FDL E DOING THEIR INVESTIGATION, STATE ATTORNEY, PURSUANT CHARGES I THINK HIRING SOMEONE AT $40,000 A MONTH WITH NO END DATE WOULD BE RIDICULOUS AS A TAXPAYER TO PAY IT. AND I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK IT OVER BEFORE WE SAY YES TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. LASTLY, THE THIRD THING IS THE STATUS OF LINDA COX AS ACTING MANAGER. I THINK WE SHOULD LET MR. NICK MIMMS GO, MOVE FORWARD WITH MISS LINDA COX, AND GET THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD SO WE COULD PUT THIS ALL BEHIND US. IT IS DEFINITELY A TAXPAYER ISSUE FOR ME. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. WHO IS NEXT? >> GOOD EVENING, TERESA ARONSON, 998 SOUTHWEST AVID AVENUE PORT ST. LUCIE UP. I AM HERE. I AM ACTUALLY THE CEO OF THE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. AND I AM MEMBER ELECT OF THE ST. LUCIE PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD. AND I AM HERE NOT TO ADDRESS ITEMS ONE AND TWO, JUST TO SHARE A FEW WORDS AND EXPERIENCES WITH LINDA COX, THE ACTING CITY MANAGER. I HAVE KNOWN HER FOR THE BETTER PART OF 20 YEARS, AND I HAVE WORKED WITH HER THAT ENTIRE TIME, AND I CAN SAY WITH THE UTMOST CERTAINTY THERE IS NO ONE THAT I THINK WOULD HAVE MORE INTEGRITY MOVING FORWARD AND LEADING THE CITY WITHIN THE BOUNDS , THE ORDINANCES, THE POLICIES THAT ARE SET FORTH BY THIS BOARD. IF THERE'S ANYTHING I KNOW ABOUT MISS COX, I KNOW SHE PAYS ATTENTION TO DETAIL AND POLICY. AND IT IS CERTAINLY HER WHEELHOUSE. REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS TONIGHT WITH THE OTHER TWO ITEMS OR WHAT YOU DECIDE TO DO, I'M NOT HERE TO INFLUENCE THAT. I JUST FELT I NEEDED TO SHARE A FEW WORDS ABOUT HER INTEGRITY AND HER ABILITY TO LEAD THIS CITY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AND THAT'S ALL I [a. Discussion and direction as required by Resolution 24-R47 regarding the following: Status of City Manager, Nick Mimms. Status of independent review of contract and personnel rules and regulations to determine if any violations exist based on the allegations against Nick Mimms. Status of the appointment of Linda Cox as Acting City Manager.] HAVE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WE WILL MOVE ON. NEXT IN THE DISCUSSION DIRECTION IS REQUIRED BY RESOLUTION 24-R 47 REGARDING THE FOLLOWING, STATUS OF CITY MANAGER, NICK MIMMS, NUMBER TWO, STATUS OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW CONTRACT AND PERSONAL RULES IN RELATION TO DETERMINE IF ANY VIOLATIONS EXIST BASED ON THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST NICK MIMMS, NUMBER THREE, STATUS OF THE APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON AS ACTING CITY MANAGER. >> OKAY, SO THOSE ARE THE THREE THINGS WE ARE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH TONIGHT. AND I'M GOING TO ASK MS. HEDGES IF YOU WILL, TO SET THE STAGE FOR US IN TERMS OF NUMBER ONE. >> YES, MA'AM. AS YOU -- SORRY, I'M KNOCKING THINGS OVER. AS YOU RECALL, THERE WAS A RESOLUTION THAT WAS PASSED RELATED TO MR. MIMMS AND THE ARREST THAT OCCURRED . IN THAT RESOLUTION, HE WAS PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITH PAY. MISS COX WAS APPOINTED AS THE ACTING CITY MANAGER, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, MYSELF, I WAS DIRECTED TO PROCURE THE SERVICES OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER WHAT OCCURRED WAS A VIOLATION OF MR. MIMMS'S AND [00:05:03] CLAIMANT CONTRACT OR OUR HR RULES. SO, PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD A MEETING WHERE I DID FIND THAT ATTORNEY AS DIRECTED, THAT WAS PUSHED TO YESTERDAY TO DISCUSS ALONG WITH THE RESOLUTION, THEN YESTERDAY THAT WAS CONTINUED TO TODAY'S SPECIAL MEETING. SO, THE FIRST ITEM IS RELATED TO THE STATUS OF MR. MIMMS AS THE CITY MANAGER, AND MOVING FORWARD HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED. SO, TEDIOUSLY, I WAS DIRECTED TO PROCURE THE SERVICES OF AN INDIVIDUAL FOR THAT INVESTIGATION. SO, THE INVESTIGATION, THE VALUE OF PERFORMING THE INVESTIGATION, AND IT'S REALLY MORE OF A COMPARISON OF WHAT OCCURRED TO OUR RULES. IT'S NOT REINVENTING THE WHEEL AND DOING AN INVESTIGATION THAT FDLE SPENT TWO YEARS DOING. BUT THE VALUE OF THAT IS IF YOU ARE INTENDING TO TERMINATE WITH CAUSE. HIS CONTRACT OUTLINES SPECIFIC WAYS IN WHICH HE CAN BE TERMINATED WITH CAUSE. THAT IS ONLY ONE WAY IN WHICH SEPARATION BETWEEN MR. MIMMS AND THE CITY CAN OCCUR. UNDER HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, YOU REALLY HAVE FOUR DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT EXIST. THE FIRST IS TERMINATION WITH CAUSE , YOU HAVE TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE. HE HAS AN AT WILL EMPLOYEE. YOU CAN TERMINATE HIM AT ANY POINT IN TIME WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE. WITHOUT CAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE A LEGAL REASON UNDER THE CAUSE THAT THE CONTRACT LAYS OUT WHAT CAUSE WOULD CONSTITUTE. SO, YOU HAVE TERMINATION WITH CAUSE, TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE. MR. MIMMS COULD VOLUNTARILY RESIGN , WHICH, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS NOT OCCURRED, OR THE FOURTH OPTION THAT EXISTS UNDER HIS CONTRACT IS A CALL FOR HIS RESIGNATION FROM THE CITY COMMISSION. AND SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, THAT IS COVERED UNDER SUBSECTION 5C. IT SAYS, IF HE RESIGNS FOLLOWING A FORMAL OFFER TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION MADE BY THE MAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE CITY COMMISSION AT A DULY AUTHORIZED PUBLIC MEETING. SO, THOSE ARE THE FOUR WAYS IN WHICH SEPARATION UNDER HIS CONTRACT CAN OCCUR BETWEEN MR. MIMMS AND THE CITY. THE SECONDARY QUESTION TO THAT THEN BECOMES SEVERANCE, THE CONTRACT DOES ALLOW FOR SEVERANCE UNDER SUBSECTION 6. IF HE IS TERMINATED WITH CAUSE, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE. IF HE VOLUNTARILY RESIGNS, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE. IF HE IS TERMINATED WITHOUT CAUSE, HE IS ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE, AND IF HE RESIGNS FOLLOWING A FORMAL REQUEST BASED ON THE VOTE OF THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COMMISSION, HE IS ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE. THE CONTRACT EXPLAINS THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO 120 DAYS OF SEVERANCE BASED ON HIS CURRENT BASE SALARY. IN COMMUNICATIONS WITH HUMAN RESOURCES, APPROXIMATE VALUE OF THAT , IF IT IS PAID OUT AT THE 120 DAYS WHICH IS ABOUT FOUR MONTHS, BUT -- IT IS FOUR MONTHS. THE AMOUNT OF SEVERANCE BASED ON HIS SALARY WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $64,000. THE CONTRACT THEN GOES ON TO EXPLAIN THAT HE IS ALSO ENTITLED TO ANY ACCRUED SICK AND VACATION LEAVE THAT HE HAS THROUGH HIS EMPLOYMENT. MR. MIMMS, HOWEVER, IS IN THE DROP SYSTEM. HE RETIRED. THAT WAS EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 2ND, 2023. HE ENTERED THE DROP SYSTEM. SO, BASED ON THAT, UNDER OUR HR RULES, HE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY SICK LEAVE. BUT HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO VACATION LEAVE AS IT APPLIES UNDER OUR HUMAN RESOURCES RULES. AS WELL, WITH THE SEVERANCE, HE WILL -- THE BASE SALARY IS PAID -- SORRY. THE BENEFITS ARE PAID TO HIM. SO, BETWEEN THE BASE SALARY AND THE BENEFITS, THAT IS ABOUT THE $64,000. SO, THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE STATUS OF WHERE HE IS, AND WHAT YOUR OPTIONS ARE. IF YOU SEEK TO GO THE ROUTE OF TERMINATION, I THINK, TODAY ARE OPTIONS THAT EXIST ARE TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE, A FORMAL VOTE TO ACCEPT HIS RESIGNATION, OR PROCEEDING FORWARD WITH THE INVESTIGATION , WHICH THE VALUE OF THAT WOULD BE TO DEVELOP CAUSE TO TERMINATE WITH CAUSE. AND I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT EXIST. >> SO, WE ARE NOT DEALING, AND WE SHOULDN'T DEAL. WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH MR. MIMS GUILT OR INNOCENCE. WE ARE DEALING WITH [00:10:02] THE FACT THAT MR. MIMMS CANNOT PERFORM THIS JOB NOW. >> YES, MA'AM. THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU IS ESSENTIALLY HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH HIS EMPLOYMENT, WITH THE STATUS AS HE EXISTS, AND THE KNOWLEDGE YOU HAVE OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY OCCURRING. >> QUESTION WITH MS. HEDGES OR DISCUSSION? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. ONCE -- SO, NOW, HE IS NO LONGER CITY MANAGER. UNDER WHATEVER SEQUENCE OF EVENTS TAKES PLACE -- WITH MY UNDERSTANDING, IF THAT'S CORRECT, AT THAT POINT IN TIME WE NEED TO APPOINT AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER. IS THAT CORRECT? SIMULTANEOUSLY? IT HAS TO HAPPEN? >> NO, SIR. I DON'T BELIEVE IT HAS TO HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY. UNDER THE TWO SEPARATION OPTIONS THAT COULD OCCUR TONIGHT, A TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE, OR THE CALL FOR HIS RESIGNATION BASICALLY. IF THERE IS A VOTE TO ASK FOR HIS RESIGNATION , I BELIEVE YOU NEED TO SET A MEETING -- SORRY, YOU NEED TO SET A DEADLINE FOR HIM TO PROVIDE YOU THAT RESIGNATION. YOU ALL WOULD THEN NEED TO FORMALLY ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION. SO, WHATEVER WE ARE ON, SEPTEMBER 17TH, LONG HOWEVER LONG YOU BELIEVE APPROPRIATE TO SUBMIT THAT RESIGNATION TO YOU , ONE WEEK, TWO WEEKS, HOWEVER THERE IN THAT TIMEFRAME YOU BELIEVE APPROPRIATE , AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A MEETING. WE HAVE AN OCTOBER 7TH MEETING TO WHERE YOU CAN ACCEPT THAT AND YOU COULD APPOINT AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER AT THAT POINT IN TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON? >> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. MORE OF A PROCESS QUESTION HERE. RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE DONE OVER THE OPTIONS OF THE STATUS OF MR. MIMMS. I'M SEEING HERE WHERE QUESTION NUMBER TWO, DISCUSSIONS AND STATUS OF A REVIEW, AND I AM ASSUMING SOME OF THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED BY HR. I KNOW WE HAD ASKED STAFF FOR SOME FEEDBACK ON THINGS LIKE THE CONTRACT SET. IS THAT ASSUMPTION CORRECT? WILL THAT INFORMATION COME FROM HR AS FAR AS ANY INTERNAL LOOKING AT OUR POLICIES COMPARED TO WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A VIOLATION OF A CURRENT EMPLOYMENT POLICY? >> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, NO. THAT IS RELATED TO THE DECISION TO SEEK OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO DO THAT INVESTIGATION. SO, THIS -- THE TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE OR THE CALL FOR HIS RESIGNATION WOULD NOT IMPLICATE A REVIEW OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES VIOLATIONS, OR HIS EMPLOYMENT VIOLATIONS. THAT IS ONLY IF YOU ARE TERMINATING WITH CAUSE WOULD YOU NEED THAT INVESTIGATION TO PROVIDE YOU THAT CAUSE ANALYSIS. >> OKAY. SO, SO, YOU KNOW? COMMISSIONERS, MAYOR, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT IS CLEAR TO ME. IF THERE'S A CAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE TO HAVE A CITED CAUSE AS TO WHY THERE'S A TERMINATION BASED ON WHATEVER POLICY VIOLATION. THAT'S THE FIRST THING. SO, I'M CLEAR ON THAT NOW, THANK YOU. WITHOUT CAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, IS, I GUESS THE SENTIMENTAL, WHATEVER CONVERSATION TAKES PLACE IN DISCUSSION UP HERE, AMONGST THE COMMISSION, ET CETERA. SO -- BEEN REQUEST RESIGNATION WOULD ALSO BE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION ON, BASED ON HOW WE LOOK AT OUR CURRENT EMPLOYEE , THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD COME FROM UP HERE. SO, I'M CLEAR NOW. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I AM CLEAR ON SOMETHING. >> COMMISSIONER GAINS? >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, MADAM MAYOR, AND MADAM ATTORNEY. BECAUSE I HEARD IT SAID EARLIER THAT, YOU KNOW, BASED ON, YOU KNOW, THE CRIMINAL CHARGES THAT MR. MIMMS IS FACING, THAT HE COULD NOT DO THIS JOB. AND I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT IN HIS CONTRACT WHERE IT SAYS I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO LOOK FOR OUR POLICIES IN HR WHERE IT SAYS THAT, AND I HAVEN'T FOUND IT. MY QUESTION IS, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR HERE, BE CLEAR, IF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE IS CRIMINALLY CHARGED IN THE PAST, BEFORE I GOT HERE, WAS THAT PERSON LET GO? WAS THAT PERSON TERMINATED? INAUDIBLE ] THE CAUSE? WHAT HAPPENED TO OTHER EMPLOYEES THAT WERE CRIMINALLY -- YOU KNOW? THAT WERE CHARGED, BUT NOT FOUND -- YOU KNOW, NOT FOUND GUILTY, BUT CHARGED, WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THE OTHER EMPLOYEES WAS IT ADMINISTRATION LEAVE? WAS IT WHATEVER? BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE ARE SAYING -- I UNDERSTAND PUBLIC PERCEPTION. I GET THAT PART. AND I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE'VE GOT TO DO. [00:15:02] BUT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IN OUR HR POLICIES HIS CONTRACT OR ANYWHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IF SOMEONE IS CRIMINALLY CHARGED THAT THEY CAN'T DO THEIR JOB, AND THEY HAVE TO BE RELEASED OR SOME TYPE OF ACTION TAKEN ON BY THE CITY. >> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, SO, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT MR. MIMMS IS NOT A TYPICAL EMPLOYEE. MOST EMPLOYEES DO NOT HAVE AT WILL CONTRACTS. THERE ARE SPECIFIC HR RULES RELATED TO YOUR OTHER EMPLOYEES THAT ARE NOT YOUR CHARTER OFFICERS. ALL THREE CHARTER OFFICERS HAVE AT WILL EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS. SO, THOSE EMPLOYEES HAVE STRICT DISCIPLINARY RULES THAT APPLY TO THEM . WITH MR. MIMMS, MYSELF, MS. COX, OUR CONTRACTS, WE ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY UNDER THOSE. I DO NOT BELIEVE ANYWHERE IN HIS CONTRACT YOU ARE GOING TO FIND THAT AN ARREST REQUIRES YOU TO FIND HE CANNOT DO HIS JOB. THE ISSUE WITH MR. MIMMS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS CURRENTLY, HE HAS A BOND CONDITION THAT PROHIBITS HIM FROM HAVING CONTACT WITH ANY WITNESSES WHILE HIS CASE IS PENDING. THOSE LISTED WITNESSES THAT I HAVE SEEN BASED ON THE FILINGS FROM THE STATE INCLUDE THE MAYOR, IT INCLUDES NUMEROUS MEMBERS OF OUR STAFF FROM TOP TO BOTTOM, MEMBERS OF OUR STAFF. SO, EFFECTIVELY, WHILE THAT BOND CONDITION EXISTS, UNLESS HE WANTS TO VIOLATE HIS BOND, HE COULD NOT HAVE CONTACT WITH ANY OF THOSE LISTED WITNESSES. SO, IT DOES EFFECTIVELY MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE AT THIS POINT FOR HIM TO RUN THE CITY. WITH RESPECT TO THE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE CITY THAT HAVE BEEN ARRESTED, THAT SPECIFICALLY, I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ANALYSIS OF HOW MANY HAVE BEEN PUT ON LEAVE WITH OR WITHOUT PAY AT THIS POINT IN TIME. YOU HAVE THE OPTION AS HIS EMPLOYER, THE RULES SAY THAT THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS THE ONE THAT DECIDES WHETHER IT IS WITH OR WITHOUT PAY. SO, YOU WILL MAKE THAT DECISION ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE. THE MR. MIMMS CONTRACT RELATED TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES SAYS THAT CAUSE EXISTS IF THERE IS A CONVICTION FOR A FELONY, AND I -- LET ME CHECK THIS SO I DON'T MISS STATE. >> MR. MAYOR, IT'S THE SAME QUESTION I HAVE, TOO. I THINK IT IS -- CONTRACT, SECTION 6, IT WAS THE SECOND PARAGRAPH. >> CAUSE IS DEFINED AS A CONVICTION OF ANY FELONY OR ANY MISDEMEANOR INVOLVING INTERPRETIVE, FRAUD OR INVOLVING OR AFFECTING THE CITY, THOSE ARE THE CRIMINAL CAUSE. IT THEN GOES ON, WILLFUL FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES OF CITY MANAGER OR A MATERIAL BREACH BY MIMMS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, AND FAILURE TO ADHERE TO FAILURE OR BREACH AFTER WRITTEN NOTICE, THEN IN THAT EVENT, CITY SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PAY AGGREGATE SEVERANCE SOME DESIGNATED IN THIS PARAGRAPH. SO, THAT IS IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT A CAUSE ANALYSIS. >> OKAY. SO, THANK YOU FOR THAT, MADAM ATTORNEY. I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR. IT'S NOT ANY OF OUR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WHERE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE BOND THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE BY THE OUTSIDE AGENCY. AND OUTSIDE AGENCY -- BECAUSE EVERYTHING I HAVE READ, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT YOUR ANSWER IS ON THE OUTSIDE AGENCY. THEY PUT A BOND WHERE HE COULDN'T DO WITNESSES OR WHATEVER, SO THAT SAYS HE CAN'T TALK TO THE MAYOR OR ANY WITNESSES. GOT IT, GET THAT. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, IS THIS. I DON'T GET CAUGHT UP INTO CONVERSATIONS ABOUT PEOPLE BEING CHARGED, AND IT'S A DONE DEAL, BECAUSE IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THERE WOULD NEVER BE ANY DEFENSE, CRIMINAL ATTORNEYS IN AMERICA. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE HIRED TO REPRESENT EVERYBODY, AND EVERYBODY GETS A FAIR SHOT AT TRIAL, SO, JUST BECAUSE THE PLEADINGS OR THE ARREST AFFIDAVIT, OR EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING IS -- LOOKS LIKE IT'S A DONE DEAL, I HAVE SEEN MANY PEOPLE WALK OUT OF THE COURTROOM WHO HAVE GOOD DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TO SAY, NO, IT'S NOT AS GOOD AS YOU THOUGHT. SO, LET'S JUST SLOW THE ROLE, WHEN WE SAY IT'S A DONE DEAL, AND BASED ON WHAT I'VE READ THAT HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED, BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED. HE HAS BEEN CHARGED. SO, AGAIN, IT'S THE BOND ISSUE WE ARE SAYING THAT PREVENTS HIM FROM DOING HIS JOB, AND NOT ANY POLICY OR PROCEDURES FROM CITY OF FT. PIERCE. >> MADAM MAYOR, YES, MA'AM, THAT IS ONE CONSIDERATION OF THIS ANALYSIS IS THE CONDITIONS THAT EXIST FOR HIM. ANOTHER [00:20:02] QUESTION BEFORE YOU IS , AS YOUR EMPLOYEE, HOW DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED? HE IS AN AT WILL EMPLOYEE THAT YOU CAN TERMINATE WITHOUT CAUSE OR CALL FOR HIS RESIGNATION AT ANY POINT IN TIME IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THE WAY HE IS PERFORMING HIS DUTIES, OR YOU HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE IN HIS ABILITY TO DO HIS DUTIES, OR HE IS UNABLE TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES. OR SOME OTHER REASON I'M NOT CURRENTLY THINKING OF IN MY MIND. >> AND I GET THAT WHOLEHEARTEDLY, BUT WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF CRIMINAL CHARGES, PENDING CRIMINAL CHARGES. IF THERE ARE NO PENDING CRIMINAL CHARGES, WE WOULD NOT BE TALKING ABOUT AT WILL. WE WOULD NOT BE TALKING ABOUT WITHOUT CAUSE, WE WOULD NOT BE TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING. WE WOULD NOT BE HERE TONIGHT. IT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE CHARGES THAT WE ARE MAKING OUR DECISION ON. I UNDERSTAND AT WILL. I -- YOU KNOW? I PRACTICE IT ALL THE TIME. HOWEVER, LET'S NOT TRY TO SAY THAT WE ARE NOT USING THE CRIMINAL CHARGES TO MAKE THIS DECISION TONIGHT BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED, HE HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED. I DON'T CARE HOW STRONG YOU THINK THE AFFIDAVIT IS, HE HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED. SO, WE CANNOT SAY IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIMINAL CHARGES, OR WE CAN TRY TO SAY HE'S AN AT WILL EMPLOYEE. I GET ALL OF THAT. SO, I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION, BECAUSE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON BEAT ME TO THE SECOND PART, PART SIX WITH THE SEVERANCE, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. WE ARE HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE MR. MIMMS HAS CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED AGAINST HIM, NO CONVICTION, NO ANYTHING BUT CRIMINAL CHARGE FILED AGAINST HIM. AND WE ARE MAKING THE DECISION BASED ON THOSE CHARGES. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR. NOT THAT HE WAS CONVICTED, BUT BASED ON THOSE CHARGES. AND OUR TIME TONIGHT IS -- IS WITH CAUSE, WITHOUT CAUSE, BASED ON THE CONTRACT, THAT WAS HERE. OR, OR RESIGNATION, OR THE OTHER PART, PART B THAT WAS NOT SAID, IF THE STATE OR LEGISLATOR CAME IN AND CHANGED WHAT WE PUT IN OUR CONTRACT, WE COULD DO IT AT THAT TIME. SO, I WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD, GUYS. WE ARE TRYING TO TIE THIS INTO THIS CRIMINAL MATTER, BUT IT IS, AND WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND , WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT BECAUSE THE CITY HAS TO GO ON. WE -- WE NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR, HERE, WHATEVER DECISION WE MAKE THAT WE PUT IT OUT ON THE RECORD, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO TELL YOU NOW, AS A SITTING ATTORNEY , AS A SITTING ATTORNEY, AND I GO THROUGH A CRIMINAL TRIAL, AND I GET ACQUITTED, I GET NO PROST, BECAUSE IT'S NOT AS GOOD AS WE WANT WHEN WE DO DISCOVERY IN THIS, I'M LOOKING AT THIS, I'M GOING TO COME BACK LATER AT THE CITY AND SAY THIS TERMINATION WAS BASED ON CRIMINAL CHARGES, NOTHING IN MY CONTRACT, NOTHING IN HR POLICY, NOTHING. AND SO, I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT THAT IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT'S OUT THERE. I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO HIM MR. MIMMS, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF HE'S THINKING LIKE THAT, BUT THIS IS MY TIME TO LET EVERYBODY HERE KNOW THAT THIS IS HOW THIS HAPPENED. WE HAVE SOME DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN THE ROOM RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE SOME IN THE ROOM RIGHT NOW. AND IF I'M SAYING ANYTHING WRONG, I HOPE THEY COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND TELL ME I'M WRONG. BUT I DON'T DO CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAW. BUT I KNOW HOW COURTROOMS WORK. SO, I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR TO WHATEVER DECISIONWE MAKE, GUYS, WHATEVER DECISION WE MAKE, WE MAKE IT WITH SOUND FACTS, BECAUSE I WANT TO MOVE ON, AND I DON'T WANT THIS TO COME BACK NEXT YEAR, YEAR AFTER YEAR, OR WE ARE NOT HERE AND IT COMES BACK AND SOMETHING ELSE HAS TO DEAL WITH IT. SO, THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER, MADAM ATTORNEY. I WILL SIT BACK AND BE QUIET FOR 30 SECONDS. >> BRODERICK? >> FOLLOW-UP. COMMISSIONER GAMES, I ALWAYS RESPECT YOUR INPUT. IT IS VERY VALUABLE. I HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE TO ADD. I AM NOT DEBATING YOUR POSITION. >> THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE. >> YOUR POSITION IS 100% ACCURATE. I BELIEVE WE ARE THE AUDITORS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HE IS NOW IN CAPABLE OF EXECUTING IN HIS JOB BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT HAS TRANSPIRED, GUILTY OR INNOCENT, AND THAT PORTION OF THE DISCUSSION IS IRRELEVANT. THIS IS A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE IN HIS ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO EXECUTE HIS JOB. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. [00:25:01] IF WE ASK FOR HIS RESIGNATION, IT'S A VOTE OF NO-CONFIDENCE BASED ON THIS BODY WHICH WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO BASED ON TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE. -- OR REQUESTING RESIGNATION. WE ARE THE ARBITERS SAYING IF HE CAN CONDUCT HIS ACTIVITIES IN HIS POSITION OR NOT, REGARDLESS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE CHARGES ARE AND WHAT THE STATE IS UP TO, WE ARE THE BODY THAT MAKES THAT DECISION. HE IS OUR EMPLOYEE. >> AND COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, I AGREE WITH YOU 100%. THIS IS THE ONLY TIME I GET -- THIS IS THE ONLY TIME I GET TO LOOK DOWN THERE AND TALK TO YOU. I CAN'T GO UPSTAIRS AND TALK TO YOU. I CAN'T GO UPSTAIRS AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS. AND YES, WE ARE THE ARBITERS. IT IS US. WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION. BUT LET'S NOT -- LET'S NOT EXCUSE THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM SO TO SPEAK THAT WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF THE CHARGES. AND IF YOU -- HOWEVER IT COMES, I JUST WANT US TO BE VERY CLEAR, AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE THAT WHATEVER DECISION WE MAKE, WE MAKE IT ON -- WE STATE IT, AND WE MAKE IT ON SOUND FACTS, MAKE IT ON SOUND FACTS BECAUSE WHATEVER HAPPENS, WHATEVER HAPPENS, AND LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE, I MEAN, WE HAVE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO -- WHO -- COUPLE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO PRESENT THAT. SO, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS IS GOING TO GO IN FRONT OF THE COURT IF IT EVER GETS IN FROM THE COURT, TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, I DON'T KNOW. BUT IN TWO OR THREE YEARS, I WANT WHOEVER IS SITTING IN THESE CHAIRS, OR IF WE ARE STILL SITTING IN THIS CHAIR, TO REMEMBER WHAT WAS SAID BECAUSE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, SOMETIMES, WE CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT WAS SAID TWO MONTHS AGO, AND IT COMES BACK , AND IT COMES BACK. SO, I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY I ASKED WHEN I WAS IN MY MEETINGS THAT WE DID NOT PUT THIS -- THIS -- THIS -- AGENDA ON WITH EVERYTHING ELSE AFTER THE CLAUSE I END EVERYTHING, YES. LET'S TALK ABOUT IT, LET'S GET THE PUBLIC INVOLVED, THEY WILL HERE, LET'S TALK ABOUT IT. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING. NOW, AM I MAD THAT I AM HERE? I CAN'T SAY THE WORDS THAT I REALLY WANT TO SAY BECAUSE I AM ON CAMERA, AND MY MOM AND POP ARE PROBABLY WATCHING, SO, MADAM MAYOR, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY IT. I HATE BEING IN THIS POSITION. BUT I CAN'T RUSH TO JUDGMENT BECAUSE MY LEGAL TRAINING IS TELLING ME TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS UP HERE, ALL THE DOTS , ALL THE T'S ARE CROSSED. SO, WHATEVER WE DECIDE TO DO, LET'S MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING AND WHY WE ARE DOING IT, AND GO AHEAD, AND ANOTHER THING I SAY, MADAM MAYOR, AND THEN I WILL BE BACK, EVERYBODY, EVERY EMPLOYEE NOW ONLY AT WILL EMPLOYEE, EVERY ONE OF OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE IS WATCHING THIS OR LISTENING TO THIS RIGHT NOW. AND THIS IS GOING TO HAVE VAST EFFECTS GOING THROUGHOUT THE CITY. SO, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I AM NOT TAKING, YOU KNOW, LIGHTLY. THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO MOVE ON AND WE HAVE TO GO. I JUST WANT TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. >> MR. J JOHNSON, YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK. >> THE COMMISSIONER ASKED MY QUESTION, THEN I TRIED TO GET TO IT. THE OTHER PART OF THE CONTRACT THAT I HIGHLIGHTED AS I WAS READING THROUGH AGAIN YET TODAY FOR -- I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT NUMBER TIME IT WAS. SO, THE LIST OF OPTIONS ON THE TABLE, RIGHT? WE KNOW THAT. THE LIST OF OPTIONS IS ON THE TABLE. YOU KNOW? THE PARTS AND PIECES, THE CAUSE SHALL BE DEFINED AS IS VERY SPECIFIC. IT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE ALLUDING TO AND SPEAKING TO, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE REAFFIRMING EXACTLY MY QUESTION AND WHAT I INTERPRETED AS A CONTRACT. SO, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT, I WILL BE HONEST WITH YOU ALL. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A COUPLE OPTIONS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE WRITTEN DOWN , AND I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU BECAUSE I CAN'T CALL YOU ON THE PHONE IS, WHEN WE GO TO -- WHEN WE ARE SPEAKING ABOUT THE SITUATION, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE PROTOCOLS THAT WE HOLD NEAR AND DEAR, POLICY MANUALS, HR MANUALS, PROCUREMENT MANUAL, PROCESSES, I ALSO HAVE -- I'M NOT SURE IF YOU ALL HAVE IT, BUT I WENT ON TO THE CODE OF ETHICS WITH GUIDELINES. >> IS REFERRED TO IN THE CONTRACT. YEAH. >> I THINK I PRINTED THIS LAST WEEK SOMETIME. SO, I WAS GOING [00:30:01] THROUGH THAT, TOO. AND SO, AS WE EVALUATE THIS , THE QUESTION CAME TO MY MIND, A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS COME TO MIND, BUT A LOGICAL POINT IN MY MIND CAME TO THE FACT OF, WE HAVE LEAVE WITHOUT PAY CURRENTLY. AND SO, IF WE HAVE LEAVE WITHOUT PAY OR ADMINISTERED LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, BUT NOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT EXPENDING ADDITIONAL DOLLARS, POTENTIALLY, I KNOW IT IS IN THE BULLET POINT LIST WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, DOES IT MAKE SENSE? I WANT TO ASK YOU ALL, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO PUT A HOLD ON -- DOES IT CAUSE ANY LEGAL ISSUES? I CAN SEE A POTENTIAL CHALLENGE POSSIBLY TO PUT A HOLD ON LEAVE WITH PAY TO A LEAVE WITHOUT PAY TO COVER THE EXPENDITURES OF A POSSIBLE REVIEW? -- OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT REVIEW WHICH IS BULLET POINT NUMBER TWO TODAY. SO, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I'VE TALKED TO A NUMBER OF FOLKS. WE'VE ALL TALKED TO A NUMBER OF FOLKS, FOLKS REACHED OUT TO ALL OF THIS AND SAID YOU ARE SPENDING MONEY ON THIS, THIS, THIS. SOME SAY, CUT IT OFF NOW. SOME SAY, YOU KNOW, HE IS OUR CITY MANAGER. HE HAS BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME. HE DEDICATED HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. LET'S LET IT PLAY OUT, ADMINISTERED LEAVE, THE OTHER FRACTION IS LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, RIGHT? AND SO, IT IS ALL THREE OF THEM. SO, MY QUESTION TO YOU ALL, IS HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THAT PART OF IT AS I SET IT TO WHERE WE STOP , AND TO WHERE THE DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT TIMES TWO, BASICALLY? YOU KNOW, MY EASY MATH IS, LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, ON TOP OF THAT IS ALSO THE EXPENDITURE OF, YOU KNOW, HAVING INVESTIGATION. SO, IS THERE ANOTHER OPTION? >> NO, MAYOR. I WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT. SO, COMMISSIONER, THAT WAS A THOUGHT, RIGHT? AND IT IS STILL A THOUGHT BECAUSE I ASKED THE ATTORNEY AND HR IN MY MEETINGS SPECIFICALLY, WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE, RIGHT? DOES THAT ALSO ENTAIL THE EXTENSION OF BENEFITS, YOU KNOW? ASIC BENEFITS, IF WE DO NO PAY, WOULD BENEFITS STILL BE INTACT FOR MR. MIMMS AND HIS FAMILY, RIGHT? I DON'T THINK I GOT AN ANSWER TO THAT, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS HERE, AND HERE IS ANOTHER THOUGHT, WE HAVE ALL BEEN APPROACHED. WE HAVE ALL HAD FEEDBACK IN CONVERSATION ABOUT REALLY REVIEWING AND GETTING A THIRD-PARTY REVIEW OF OUR CURRENT POLICIES THAT ARE IN PLACE. AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION EARLIER. WITH THAT IS THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED TO THE POINT I HAVE GOTTEN THAT, THAT I TRULY UNDERSTAND THE VIOLATION OF OUR INTERNAL POLICY, ET CETERA, HE IS ALSO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF RCRA. THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN MY UNDERSTANDING WITH THE FLORIDA STATUTES WITH THE CRA THAT WE NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF AND MAKE SURE THAT IS LINING UP. HE IS NOT JUST THE CITY MANAGER, BUT HE IS THE EXECUTIVE MANAGER OF THE CRA WHICH EXECUTED THIS WHOLE PROCESS. AND, AND SO, IT GOT ME THINKING, HOW COULD WE, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS THE CONCERNS, THE WELL-PLACED CONCERNS OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE CITY WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR TAXPAYER DOLLARS? AND THEN ALSO, COMMISSIONER GAMES, YOUR ARGUMENT ON THE OTHER END OF THAT IS, HOW DO WE NOT JEOPARDIZE THOSE TAXPAYING DOLLARS IN WHAT MAY BE A RUSH TO JUDGMENT WHEN WE FIND OURSELVS HAVING TO DEFEND SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE IF THIS GOES ANOTHER WAY? SO, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I THINK THAT ALIGNS WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, AND HERE IS A MERE THOUGHT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE THOUGHT ABOUT MAYBE CONSIDERING THAT, AND THEN ALSO COMMISSIONING A COMMISSION, BLUE-RIBBON PANEL, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. OF RETIRED PEOPLE THAT AREN'T ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY, JUDGES, LAWYERS, TO LOOK AT OUR POLICIES, GIVE RECOMMENDATION, WE COULD HAVE SOME PEOPLE ON THAT. BUT THERE ARE ENOUGH PEOPLE IN OUR AREA THAT ARE RETIRED, THE COUNTY MANAGEMENT, CITY MANAGEMENT FROM OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES, ET CETERA, TO HELP US LOOK AT OUR CURRENT POLICIES BECAUSE AS I READ THAT AFFIDAVIT AGAIN TODAY , SOME THINGS JUMPED OUT TO ME. AND THEN THIS WHOLE QUESTION ABOUT ACTIONS AS A CRA AND WHAT WAS ACTUALLY TRANSPIRING HERE, I THINK , MY CAUTION ALONE WITH COMMISSIONER GAINES IS, I'M NOT SATISFIED THAT WE HAVE REALLY LOOKED AT THAT. >> WE HAVEN'T. >> WE HAVEN'T. AND SO, MY THING IS, IS THERE A WAY WITHOUT SPENDING TAXPAYERS DOLLARS THAT WE COULD AMASS THIS COMMISSION, EACH ONE OF US APPOINTING SOME RETIRED PERSON, JUDGES OUT HERE, ET CETERA, JUST TO LOOK AT OUR POLICIES, THEY AREN'T BLACK AND WHITE. THEY CAN OPENLY HAVE A CONVERSATION BASED ON WHAT IS [00:35:01] IN BLACK AND WHITE AND HOW THIS ACTUAL POLICY IS WRITTEN AND WHAT TRANSPIRED, AND GO THROUGH OUR PROCEDURE TO PRESENT THAT INFORMATION. IT IS A THOUGHT. THAT'S WHERE I AM AT. SO, SO, YES, I AM THINKING ABOUT THAT. AND I WOULD STILL LIKE MY QUESTION ANSWERED AS FAR AS WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE AS FAR AS EMILY -- ANY SALARY BENEFIT, ET CETERA. I DON'T KNOW WHO CAN ANSWER THAT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ANSWERED NOW, BUT THAT'S A QUESTION I PUT OUT THERE. I THINK IT IS HR OR SOMEBODY. >> COMMISSIONER, YOU ARE SEPARATING SALARY AND BENEFIT PACK? >> THAT'S RIGHT. I WANT TO KNOW IF IT IS PART. I DON'T KNOW, RIGHT? IF WE DO, YOU KNOW, NOT -- >> IT STAYS IN PLACE, EVERYTHING, IT GOES AWAY. >> RIGHT. RIGHT. RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. >> MADAME MAYOR? I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT COMMISSIONER JEREMIAH JOHNSON IS SAYING BECAUSE I WANT TO BE CLEAR. YOUR COMMENTS WERE, WITHOUT PAY , BUT THEN USE THE MONEY THAT WE WERE PAYING TO MR. MIMMS TO PAY THE INVESTIGATOR? IS THAT -- THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING? >> IT WAS A QUESTION OF CONSIDERATION. AND SO, YEAH, IT WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY A BALANCE. >> OKAY, I GOT WHERE YOU ARE GOING. AND MY CONCERN WITH THAT WOULD BE, WOULDN'T THAT BE SOME TYPE OF VIOLATION OF SOME LABOR LAWS AND SOME FEDERAL -- YOU KNOW? NOW WE ARE GETTING INTO WAGES, SALARY AND ALL OF THAT. BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD TAKE -- EITHER WE ARE GOING TO LET HIM GO WITHOUT PAY, OR LET HIM GO WITH PAY, RETIREMENT, WHATEVER THESE OPTIONS ARE, BUT TO SAY WITHOUT PAY , AND THEN, I GUESS -- I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS -- ALL RIGHT, SO WE ARE NOT PAYING HIM ANYMORE, SO THE MONEY WE ARE NOT PAYING GOES BACK INTO, I GUESS, THE GENERAL FUND? THE GENERAL FUND? BUT THAT MONEY THAT GOES BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND, WE HAVE TO SHOW WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE SPENT. SO WE ARE GOING TO SAY THAT MONEY IS NOW BEING SPENT -- YOU ARE ASKING THAT MONEY TO BE SPENT ON AN INVESTIGATOR TO LOOK AT OUR POLICIES? I'M JUST TRYING -- NOT SAYING -- I'M TRYING TO FIGURE WHERE YOU WERE GOING. >> THAT IS ON -- THAT'S ON A VERY DIRECT BASIS. I BELIEVE THAT IF WE WERE TO SAY THAT WE HAD ADMINISTERED TO LEAVE WITH PAY, WITHOUT PAY, THAT DOESN'T MATTER TO ITEM NUMBER TWO WHICH IS GOING TO BE AN OPTION TO FUND AN INVESTIGATION, AND FUNDING THAT INVESTIGATION IS GOING TO COME OUT OF SOME PART OF OUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET, RESERVE, IT CAN BE A SPECIAL ACCOUNT. I DON'T CARE. MS. MORRIS IS GOING TO TELL US WHAT THE MONEY IS. AND MR. COX WILL PROVIDE HER INPUT. IT WON'T BE DIRECT. >> I'M NOT ON NUMBER TWO YET. I'M STILL ON NUMBER ONE. >> I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT NUMBER TWO. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, YOU WOULDN'T RESERVE -- MY POINT IS, DO WE MAKE THE DECISION OF ADMINISTRATOR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY BECAUSE THERE IS A CRY IN THE COMMUNITY WITHOUT MAKING THE DECISION, AND SECONDLY, THERE'S TAXPAYER FUNDING, WHICH WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS, WE ARE ALL CONCERNED WITH. >> I AGREE 100%. JUST -- WHEN YOU SAY STUFF LIKE THAT, WHEN YOU SAY, IF WE MAKE -- >> I KNOW WHAT IT WAS. >> I WISH IT WOULD'VE BEEN SAID, LET'S JUST -- LET'S JUST GO WITHOUT PAY BECAUSE -- THIS IS HOW I'M TAKING IT. THIS IS WHAT I'M GETTING TO. THIS IS ON TAKING IT. WITHOUT PAY, THIS IS HOW IT CAME ACROSS TO ME -- WITHOUT PAY, THEN THE MONEY WE WERE PAYING HIM WHILE WITH PAY, WE ARE NOT GOING TO USE THAT MONEY TO GO PAY FOR AN INVESTIGATION. AND TO ME, I THINK WE ARE IN VIOLATION OF SOME LABOR LAWS. I COULD BE WRONG. I DON'T DO LABOR. YOU KNOW? THE WAGE, SALARY, ALL THOSE LAWS, THAT'S A BIG PART OF LAW OUT THERE, THAT -- RIGHT -- THAT -- LAWYERS MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY ON. LIKE I SAY, I COULD BE WRONG BECAUSE THAT'S NOT MY AREA. BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO NO WAGES, WAGES, SALARY, AND ALL THAT STUFF PAYMENT. SO, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT SAYING, IF WE DO IT WITHOUT PAY, WE ARE NOT SAYING WE ARE GOING TO THEN TURN AROUND AND USE THE MONEY THAT WE -- WE ARE NOT PAYING YOU TO DO -- TO PAY -- AN INVESTIGATOR OR SOMETHING INTO THE RESEARCH. I THINK THAT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE FOR US, AND I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD. >> EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A CONTRACT OF AN AT WILL EMPLOYEE THAT WE CAN MAKE ANY DECISION WHAT WE'D LIKE TO, ANY POINT BECAUSE NICHOLAS MIMS SIGNED -- >> I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH [00:40:07] YOU, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS, THIS IS RECORDED. EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID TONIGHT IS RECORDED. AND I'M TELLING YOU WHAT I HEARD. AND IF I DIDN'T HEAR THAT, THAT'S WHY -- THAT'S WHY -- THAT'S I AM TALKING TO YOU RIGHT NOW. IF I DIDN'T HEAR THAT, I AM WRONG, I NEED TO KNOW TONIGHT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE SAYING. I HEARD COMMISSIONER BRODERICK SAY, NO, THE MONEY GOES BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND, OKAY, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO CLEAR THAT UP BECAUSE THAT'S OUT THERE. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO CLEAR IT UP BECAUSE AGAIN, GUYS, AS HARD AS IT IS, I'M TRYING TO KEEP -- AS HARD AS I'M TRYING TO KEEP ON MY COMMISSIONER HAT, IT'S THIS ATTORNEY HAT IS GETTING TIGHTER AND TIGHTER ON MY HEAD, AND I'M SORRY THAT -- I'M SORRY -- AND I'M SORRY THAT I'M THAT WAY, BUT IT'S LINE TRAIN, I'M A TRAINED LITIGATOR, THAT'S HOW ENTRAINED, SO MY MIND AS I WAS THINKING THAT WAY AND I HAVE A DUTY TO FIX THIS TONIGHT SO THE CITY CAN MOVE FORWARD, MOVE FORWARD, AND DO THE BUSINESS OF -- FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, BUT I ALSO HAVE A DUTY SITTING IN HIS CHAIR TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS OF FORT PIERCE FOR ANYTHING THAT COULD COME BACK IN THE FUTURE AND -- AND -- BECAUSE WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE IT'S ALL TAXPAYER MONEY -- NOT -- NOW -- NONE OF US UP HERE DID WE GET SUED IN A JUDGMENT GOT TO GO IN OUR CHECKBOOKS AND WRITE A CHECK. IT'S GOING TO BE FROM THE CITY, THE RESIDENCE OF FT. PIERCE, AND THAT'S ALL I'M CONCERNED ABOUT RIGHT NOW THAT WE MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION , USE THE RIGHT WORDS, AND WE GO FROM THERE. AND I SEE I HAVE STRUCK A NERVE WITH MADAM ATTORNEY OVER THERE, SO I WILL BE QUIET! AND SIT BACK FOR NOW! >> DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SAY? >> YES, MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, AGAIN, I FEEL THE NEED TO REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT THIS IS AN AT WILL CONTRACT. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FIND A BASIS TO TERMINATE HIM! AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT TERMINATING FOR AN ILLEGAL REASON, SOME DISCRIMINATORY REASON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, HE IS AN AT WILL EMPLOYEE! HE CAN BE TERMINATED FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN SOMETHING ILLEGAL AT ANY POINT IN TIME! AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO IMPLICATE -- ANYONE CAN SUE FOR ANYTHING! WE SEE IT ALL THE TIME. WE GET SUED FOR NONSENSE! IT HAPPENS! BUT HE IS AN AT WILL EMPLOYEE WITH A CONTRACT THAT HE AGREED TO! AND WHILE HE HAS BEEN CHARGED CRIMINALLY, WHETHER HE IS CONVICTED OR FOUND NOT GUILTY AT A TRIAL, THAT IS A SEPARATE QUESTION TO HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND HOW YOU ALL WANT TO PROCEED WITH HIS EMPLOYMENT! THAT CONVICTION OF A FELONY WOULD CONSTITUTE CAUSE UNDER THE CONTRACT THAT EXISTS! BUT HIS AT WILL STATUS UNDER THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF HIS SEPARATION FROM THE CITY DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT FINDING OF GUILT AT A TRIAL. >> MADAM ATTORNEY, I'M GOING TO BE QUIET! I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE -- ME AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN ARGUMENT TONIGHT BECAUSE WE DISCUSSED ALL THIS, BUT THIS AREA OF LAW THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, THIS IS MY AREA OF LAW. I ASSUME AT WILL CONTRACTS, AT WILL TERMINATIONS EVERY DAY. THAT'S WHAT I DO. AND I AM JUST TELLING YOU GUYS THAT JUST BECAUSE WE GOT IN THE CONTRACT AT WILL, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET A MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED WITH ALL THE FACTS THAT WE CAN -- SOMEBODY CAN BRING ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITUATION. THIS IS WHAT I DO. I DON'T PRACTICE CRIMINAL LAW. THIS IS WHAT I DO. I DO WRONGFUL TERMINATION, I DO DISSEMINATION, THIS IS WHAT I DO! SO, THIS IS WHY I'M SO -- I AM TRYING TO -- NOT GIVE OUT A PLAYBOOK, MADAM ATTORNEY TALKING ABOUT THAT, NOT GIVE OUT A PLAYBOOK, BUT ALSO TRYING TO EDUCATE MY FELLOW COLLEAGUES THAT THIS IS -- THIS IS SOMETHING YOU REALLY NEED TO DISCUSS. I UNDERSTAND AT WILL. I UNDERSTAND AT WILL. JUST BECAUSE THE CONTRACT SAYS AT WILL DOES NOT MEAN THAT A JURY OR JUDGE WILL LOOK AT IT THAT WAY WHEN EVERYTHING IS -- EVERYTHING IS PUT -- I'M DONE WITH THAT! I GOT WHAT YOU SAID, MADAM ATTORNEY, WE ARE AT WILL. THE CONTRACT IS WHAT THE CONTRACT SAYS, SO, WE CAN -- IT IS WHAT IT IS. WE ALL GOT QUESTIONS. I DIDN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, CURTIS JOHNSON, I DID GO BACK AND READ AT THE FIRST TIME -- I FORGOT ALL ABOUT THAT HE WAS -- YOU KNOW -- THAT HE WAS THAT -- THAT -- THAT -- THAT PERSON, SO, MADAM ATTORNEY HAS -- HAVE WE LOOKED AT THAT TO SEE IF THAT INTERFERES WITH AT WILL OR ANYTHING OR IF IT ALL FLOWS THE SAME WAY OR -- OR -- >> THE STATUS IS THE CITY MANAGER. THE EXTRA APPOINTMENT [00:45:13] WAS DONE BECAUSE THAT POSITION EXISTED WITHIN THE CITY, SO, HIS POSITION IS CITY MANAGER. THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL ROLE THAT HE HAS IN ADDITION TO BEING THE CITY MANAGER. >> I ASKED THE QUESTION, SO -- >> SO, TO FOLLOW UP, COMMISSIONER, I WILL USE YOUR EXPERIENCE. I LOVE ARGUING WITH ENGINEERS AND ATTORNEYS, OUTSIDE -- NOT AT THIS BASIS. BECAUSE CONTRACTS -- I JUST LIKE BLACK AND WHITE CONTRACTS. I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE OPINIONS AND OPTIONS. SO, HERE IS MY QUESTION TO YOU, SINCE YOU HAVE THIS EXPERIENCE. IF I WERE TO SAY AND RECOMMEND AND THIS COMMISSION JUST MOVED ALONG OR ANYONE SAID, ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITHOUT PAY , IS THERE STILL AN OPTION FOR A CHALLENGE LATER, LEGALLY? HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED THAT BEFORE? BECAUSE I WANT TO LEARN FROM THAT EXPERIENCE. -- IF SO. >> ALL RIGHT, SO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, AND I UNDERSTAND IT, IF IT BE WITHOUT PAY, THAT WOULD MEAN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE -- YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF CAUSE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. >> THAT'S EASY. HE DIDN'T CROSS THE THRESHOLD. SO, CHECK. >> OKAY, SO, NOW, SO, THAT'S YOUR ANSWER, RIGHT? YOU MADE A CHECK. SO, NOW, I GUESS YOUR QUESTION IS, WILL THAT STOP A SUIT DOWN THE ROAD? NOTHING WE DO TONIGHT, GUYS, NOTHING WE DO IS GOING TO STOP A SUIT. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SUE US, WE HAVE HEARD OF THREATS FOREVER SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE FOR 20 1/2 YEARS, NOTHINGS GOING TO STOP A SUIT. SO, I'M NOT TRYING TO TALK US OUT OF ANYTHING BECAUSE I AM WORRIED OF A LAWSUIT. PEOPLE FILE LAWSUITS FOR -- YOU KNOW, BROKEN SHOELACES, SO, YOU KNOW, IT JUST HAPPENS, YOU KNOW? THEY SUE NIKE BECAUSE NIKE SHOELACES CAME APART AND THEY TRY TO SUE -- I UNDERSTAND THAT! BUT I AM TRYING TO DO MY BEST SITTING IN THIS SEAT, SEE NUMBER FIVE, THIS SEAT, TO PUT MY EXPERTISE OUT AND, AGAIN, I'M LOOKING AROUND, I THINK IT IS ONE ATTORNEY, TWO ATTORNEYS, MAYBE THREE? I CAN GUARANTEE IF YOU PUT ALL OF US, PUT ANOTHER SEAT THERE AND PUT ALL OF US RIGHT THERE, WE WILL ALL HAVE THREE -- WE ALL HAVE THREE DIFFERENT OPINIONS, AND WE WILL BE HERE ALL NIGHT! BUT I CAN'T WORRY ABOUT THAT. I HAVE TO TELL YOU WHAT I HAVE TO TELL YOU, THEN WE GO FROM THERE. SO, LET'S JUST -- ALL I'M SAYING IS, MAKE SURE WE HAVE ALL THE FACTS, EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE READ EVERYTHING, AND READ EVERYTHING, AND LET'S MAKE THE BEST DECISION TO GO FORWARD FOR THE RESIDENTS OF FORT PIERCE AND -- AND -- MOVING THE CITY FORWARD, AND -- AND -- YOU KNOW? LIKE I SAID, PROTECTING THE TAXPAYERS, THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE FOR. >> SO, I WOULD LIKE TO INTERJECT HERE. SO, ARE YOU SERIOUSLY MAKING THAT AS A POSSIBILITY OF ADMINISTERING TO LEAVE WITHOUT PAY? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU SERIOUSLY WANT TO CONSIDER? BECAUSE -- >> PER OUR CONVERSATION, ABSOLUTELY. >> THAT MEANS WE STILL HAVE A CITY MANAGER OUT THERE? >> YEAH, I HAD ASKED THE QUESTION, BECAUSE I NEEDED TO ASK YOU ALL -- >> WHAT I MEAN IS, YOU SAW THE CITY MANAGER OUT THERE, DO YOU STILL HAVE A CITY WITHOUT A LEADER? >> YES, EXCEPT WE HAVE AN ACTING LEADER, YES. >> WE HAVE AN ACTING LEADER, RIGHT. SO, DID I ALSO HEAR YOU PROPOSE THAT PERHAPS THAT COULD ALSO BE WITH BENEFITS? DID YOU -- YOU WERE ASKING THE QUESTION? >> I WAS -- >> WE'VE HEARD -- >> CLARIFY WHY -- WHICH IS WHAT I HEARD A FEW MINUTES AGO REALLY FOR THE FIRST TIME , VERY CLEAR, DEFINITIVE, I COULD'VE DONE MY OWN CALCULATION, 64,000 ROUGHLY. WE HEARD THAT ON THE RECORD. WE HEARD THIS MEETING ABOUT WHAT THE FISCAL NUMBER IS, NOW IT'S DISCUSSING SEVERANCE, RIGHT? BECAUSE SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT COULD BE MADE TONIGHT INVOLVE A SEVERANCE PACKAGE, AND THAT'S THE NUMBER, SO -- >> YOU WANTED THE NUMBERS. >> MY LITTLE WHEEL STARTED SPINNING FASTER. SO, THAT'S THE QUESTION -- >> SO, MS. HEDGES, THAT PROPOSAL, IDEA, OR -- OF WHAT HAS JUST BEEN SAID, AN ADMINISTRATOR LEAVE WITH BENEFITS, THAT -- IS THAT A WORKABLE -- IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S POSSIBLE? >> MADAM MAYOR, YES, MA'AM. MS. MORRIS DID COME DOWN TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. SHE WAS HERE WHISPERING TO ME. SO, UNDER OUR RULES TO THE APPOINTING BODY FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DECIDE ADMINISTERED LEAVE WITH OR WITHOUT PAY. IF YOU DO, HE IS CURRENTLY WITHOUT PAY, IF YOU SWITCH THIS TO WITHOUT PAY, YOU CAN ALLOW THOSE BENEFITS TO STAY INTACT. HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS NOT COVERED BY THE CITY AS PART OF HIS [00:50:05] EMPLOYMENT, SO ANY DEPENDENTS OR BUYOUTS, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT RELATED TO HIS INSURANCE COVERAGES, HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY THOSE TO KEEP THOSE INTACT. >> SO -- TO THAT. THAT IS -- OKAY. WER - >> MR. BRODERICK? >> COMMISSIONER GAINES HAS GIVEN US COLLEGE LAW, JUNIOR YEAR EDUCATION TONIGHT. >> RIGHT? >> I'M APPRECIATIVE OF HIS INPUT AS USUAL. TWO DIFFERENT POINTS, THOUGH. I THINK -- AND THIS GOES BACK TO COMMISSIONER GAINES , THE COMMENT, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER J JOHNSON'S COMMENT, RELATIVE TO GUILT OR INNOCENCE, OR VIOLATION OF POLICY OR NON-VIOLATION OF POLICY, WE HAVE NO BASIS OF INFORMATION ON ANY OF THIS, AND I GET THE $80,000 PRICE TAG WHEN I HEARD THAT, MY EYES POPPED. I'M NOT LOOKING TO SPEND $80,000 OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO LAUNCH AN INVESTIGATION. SO, I'M NOT SURE THERE'S ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE TO MAKING THOSE TERMINATIONS NOT RELATIVE TO CITY OF FORT PIERCE POLICY -- ISIL, FROM DAY ONE, I SAID I'M NOT THE PERSON TO RUSH TO JUDGMENT, THAT WE NEED FACTUAL INFORMATION ON THE TABLE TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS. PUTTING THAT ARGUMENT ASIDE, I COME BACK TO MY EARLIER COMMENT, DOES THIS COMMISSION FEEL RESOLVE, WHATEVER THE CONFLICT IS HERE, AND WE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN HIS ABILITY TO EXECUTE HIS JOB? WE HAVE NOW BEEN TOLD HIS BOND ISSUANCE SAYS, NO, HE CAN'T EFFECTIVELY EXECUTE HIS JOB BECAUSE HE IS PRECLUDED FROM COMMUNICATING WITH THE MAYOR, FOR ONE PERSON, I'M SURE THERE'S A LAUNDRY LIST OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THAT LIST THAT HE CAN'T COMMUNICATE WITH. SO, IS THERE A CONFIDENCE HE IS ABLE TO EXECUTE ? AND IF NOT, THAT BOILS DOWN TO REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN, CANDIDLY, OR SOME TYPE OF TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE, LET'S FORGET THAT AS AN OPTION. CAUSE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED, PERIOD. AS MS. HEDGES KEEPS SAYING, THAT CONTRACT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO TERMINATE WITHOUT CAUSE, SO, THAT IS REALLY THE OPTION. CONTINUE ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, OF COURSE, IS AN OPTION. TERMINATION WITH CAUSE IS THE OTHER OPTION, OR REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION WHICH I THINK IS GOING TO PUT US BACK RIGHT HERE TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM. THOSE, TO ME, ARE THE THREE VIABLE OPTIONS ON THE TABLE CURRENTLY. AND SINCE WE HAVE -- WE HAVE NO DOCUMENTATION, WE HAVE ALLEGATIONS, AND WE HAVE PUT IN THE CHAIR THE PERSON WHO DRAFTED THESE ALLEGATIONS TASK SIX HOURS WORTH OF QUESTIONS TO HIM, NO. SO, WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION, A RUSH TO JUDGMENT IN MY MIND IS UNACCEPTABLE. HOWEVER, HAVING BEEN SAID, THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE. WE NEED A CITY MANAGER. WE NEED SOMEBODY TO MOVE THE AGENDA FORWARD. I GET IT, WE HAVE AN ACTING MANAGER NOW. THAT IS A SHORT-TERM SOLUTION. DO WE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN HIS ABILITY TO EXECUTE THE JOB IF HE WERE TO COME BACK INTO THIS ROOM RIGHT NOW, THE FIVE OF US SITTING HERE NEED TO HAVE COMPLETE CONFIDENCE IN OUR CITY MANAGER IF THEY ARE ABLE TO EXECUTE THEIR POSITION. DO WE ABSOLUTELY FEEL THAT'S THE CASE? I AM SERIOUSLY QUESTIONING THAT ABILITY. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS RELATIVE TO THAT POINT. BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS THE CORE ISSUE, FORGET ABOUT THE LEGALESE, PUT THAT ASIDE, PORTIONS OF THE CONTRACT LATITUDE TO BASICALLY DO WHATEVER WE WANT TO DO, BUT IS THAT CONFIDENCE LEVEL THEY ARE THAT HE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO EXECUTE HIS JOB MOVING FORWARD? >> AND ALSO, WE WANT OUR CITIZENS TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE CITY MOVING FORWARD, AND OUR STAFF BECAUSE OUR STAFF IS -- IS AT SEA BECAUSE OF -- AND WE -- WE OWE IT TO THEM AS WELL AS THE CITIZENS, AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE KIND OF GETTING MIXED UP IS, IS THE INVESTIGATION WAS ONLY IN TERMS OF MR. MIMMS AND MR. MIMMS ACTIONS, BUT THE CITIZENS CAN [00:55:04] EXPECT THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD IN AN HONEST AND FAIR WAY. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE TALKED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE ACTING CITY MANAGER, BUT I HAVE CERTAINLY SAID I WANT THINGS -- I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ASSURE OUR CITIZENS THAT WE ARE OPERATING IN A FAIR MANNER. AND I BELIEVE STEPS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKEN, MS. HEDGES, ARE WE NOT ALREADY REVIEWING OUR PURCHASING PROCESS RIGHT NOW? AND GOING TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION THE RULES OF PURCHASING AND ASSURANCES THAT ALL IS BEING DONE FAIR? >> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, YES, MA'AM. I AM UNDERTAKEN TO HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REVIEW OUR CODE RELATED TO PURCHASING, SO WE ARE DOING A COMPLETE OVERHAUL OF OUR PURCHASING CODE THAT WILL INCLUDE OUR PROCUREMENT MANUAL THAT HAS DIFFERENT POLICIES IN ADDITION TO THE CODE REQUIREMENTS. THEY WILL ALSO BE LOOKING AT CONTRACT TEMPLATES AND HOW WE ARE DRAFTING OUR CONTRACTS ADDITIONALLY. THERE IS A SET TRAINING ETHICS TRAINING THAT WILL BE OFFERED AND MANDATORY FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. >> AND MS. COX, DIDN'T YOU AND I DISCUSSED -- WE ARE REVIEWING ALL OF THE RFPS, THE CURRENT ONES, AND AREN'T YOU ALSO REVIEWING THE EVALUATION COMMITTEES ? >> LOOKING -- YES, MA'AM. WE ARE ACTUALLY HAVING A COUPLE OF OUR RFPS THAT HAVE GONE OUT THAT WE PULLED BACK BECAUSE WE FELT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THEM. THE SAME GROUP THAT IS DOING THE POLICY MANUAL IS GOING TO BE REVIEWING THOSE JUST TO MAKE SURE WE ARE DOING IT PROPERLY. AND WE HAD A MEETING WITH OUR PURCHASING STAFF, OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR JUST TO TALK ABOUT OUR PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN GENERAL, MAKING SURE EVERYBODY FELT VERY COMFORTABLE , AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT IS OUR EVALUATION COMMITTEES, HOW THEY ARE SELECTED, WHO IS SERVING ON THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD EVERYONE IS COUNTABLE. NOBODY IS COUNTABLE SERVING AN EVALUATION COMMITTEE. THAT IS THE ROOT OF IT. SO, REALLY, THE TRAINING IS GOING TO HELP. I THINK THE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES ARE GOING TO HELP, AND, DOING AN OVERALL VIEW OF EVERYTHING PURCHASING TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY THAT IS TOUCHING IT FEELS COMFORTABLE, AND FEELS EMPOWERED TO SAY, NO, THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT WAY TO DO -- >> YOU WANT TO DEVELOP A CULTURE WHERE SOMEONE IS ABLE TO QUESTION? >> ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY. YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT WE HAD A GREAT MEETING. YOU KNOW? I SET SOME VERY HIGH STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS. LIKE, IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE, I WANT YOU TO SAY SO, YOU KNOW? IF YOU ARE NOT TELLING ME, YOU TELL SOMEBODY. BUT WE ARE NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THINGS THAT MAKE -- THAT DON'T FEEL RIGHT BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT TO US, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT NOT LOOK RIGHT TO THE PUBLIC. I THINK IT'S A VERY SENSITIVE TOPIC RIGHT NOW THAT EVERYONE IS FULLY AWARE OF. >> RIGHT. SO, ONE OF THE THINGS I COME BACK TO IS HAVING A PERSON AT THE HELM WHO IS MOVING THIS CITY FORWARD AND CAN ASSURE TAXPAYERS THAT WE ARE DOING RIGHT AND FAIR PROCESSES, AND THAT THE COMMISSION CAN BE CONFIDENT. I BELIEVE THAT NEEDS TO BE HAPPENING SOON, AND SO, I -- I HAVE -- I AM -- I'M LIKE COMMISSIONER GAINES. I AM TORN. IN THE LONG SERVICE OF OUR CITY MANAGER -- AND -- BUT -- I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY HE ABOVE ALL WOULD SAY WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD, WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD. WE NEED A LEADER OF THE STAFF, THE STAFF HAS TO FEEL THAT THEY ARE NOT SCARED AND UNEASY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A LEADER AND THE CITIZENS HAVE TO FEEL -- THE CITY IS MOVING FORWARD. >> STABILITY. >> STABILITY. WE NEED TO RIGHT THE SHIP RIGHT NOW, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY AND ACTING CITY MANAGER HAVE TAKEN SOME STEPS TO DO THAT. COMMISSIONER GAINES? >> MADAM MAYOR, I AGREE 100% WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD, AND WE NEED TO RIGHT THE SHIP, SO TO SPEAK. I HAVE TWO COMMENTS, THEN WE CAN, WE CAN MAKE A DECISION. ONE COMMENT IS FROM -- SINCE THE DATA HIT THE PRESS , YOU KNOW, ME TURN ON THE TV AND SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON, DOWN IN MIAMI, HAVING TO COME BACK HERE, YOU KNOW, FRIDAY, FROM ALL OUR READING, REGARDLESS WHAT WE DO TONIGHT, AND, BUT MOVING FORWARD, WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THE DUTIES OF THE CITY MANAGER. AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT THEM VERY HARD BECAUSE I HAVE COME TO FIND OUT THAT A LOT OF THINGS WERE -- YOU KNOW, [01:00:04] REVIEWED LEGALLY AFTER-THE-FACT. AND THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. >> NOT AT ALL. >> THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. YOU SHOULD NOT THIS CLUED THE ATTORNEY. ANOTHER THING THAT I KNOW YOU GUYS , MAYBE NOT JEREMIAH, BECAUSE HE'S ABOUT TO LEAVE US. ANOTHER THING WE NEED TO LOOK AT IS, A LOT OF THE POWERS THAT WE HAVE GIVEN TO SOME OF THESE DIRECTORS AND SOME OF THESE -- EVEN THE FORMER CITY MANAGER, WE MIGHT NEED TO LET SOME OF THAT STUFF COME BACK IN FRONT OF US, IT MIGHT MAKE OUR NIGHTS A LITTLE LONGER, MEETINGS A LITTLE LONGER, IT MIGHT MAKE OUR MEETINGS GO FROM ONE HOUR TO TWO OR THREE HOURS, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ELECTED TO DO, AND WE NEED TO BE, YOU KNOW, I GUESS, MORE DURESS ON WHAT IS GOING ON. DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CHART SAYS, WE CAN LOOK AT THE CHARTER AND REVAMP THE CHARTER, BUT WE ARE AT THIS JUNCTURE NOW IN THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE THAT WE NEED TO PREVENT THIS FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN. I CAN'T -- WE CAN'T STOP INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS, BUT WE CAN CONTROL. WE CAN CONTROL WHAT WE PUT ON PAPER AND AND AND -- DUTIES. SO, THAT'S THE ONE THING I'M GOING TO SAY. THE SECOND THING I'M GOING TO SAY AND ANYBODY IN THIS -- IN HIS OFFICE, AND I'M GOING TO LOOK AT MISSES COX RIGHT NOW, DON'T TAKE THIS PERSONALLY, IT'S NOT PERSONAL ME AND YOU TALK. THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE CITY EMPLOYEES WHO FEEL THAT THEY HAVE NO ONE TO TALK TO. -- ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS. I AM JUST TELLING YOU WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD. ON THE MICROPHONE, THEY HAVE COME TO ME, I'M NOT CALLING THEM NAMES, BUT I SAY WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD, AND I DON'T KNOW WHY , I DIDN'T ASK WHY BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GET IN THE MIDDLE OF NO EMPLOYEE VERSUS ANOTHER EMPLOYEE, I'M NOT GETTING NONE OF THAT. SO, MY QUESTION TO COMMISSION, WHILE WE ARE WRITING THIS SHIP, ARE WE GOING TO PUT SOME TYPE OF PROTECTIONS OR PROCEDURES IN WHERE -- IF AN EMPLOYEE DOESN'T FEEL CONFIDENCE IN TALKING TO MS. COX, TALKING WITH YOU, MADAM MAYOR, TALKING TO ANYONE OF US, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? CAN WE FIND SOMETHING -- AND THIS IS HR QUESTION, CAN WE FIND SOMETHING WHERE THAT EMPLOYEE FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH GOING IN AND SAYING THIS IS WHAT'S GOING ON, THIS IS WHY I FEEL THIS WAY, AND ] AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO DO THAT NOW IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, OUR EMPLOYEES, BUT THEY ARE AFRAID, AND THEY WILL NOT COME IN FRONT OF THIS MICROPHONE AND SAY IT. I WILL COME TO SAY IT FOR THEM. AND THIS IS NOT PERSONAL, THIS IS JUST WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE ARE TALKING TO EMPLOYEES, THOSE EMPLOYEES HAVE COMFORT THAT THEY CAN SAY WHAT THEY REALLY WANT TO SAY, AND WE LISTEN, AND IT GETS TO US, AND THEN WE UNDERSTAND. >> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONER, IF I CAN ADDRESS THAT, SO, OUR RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT -- THAT DEPARTMENT DOES REPORT TO ME. ONE OF THE THINGS IN THE KIND OF IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF THIS ARREST , RISK MANAGEMENT DID SET UP -- WE HAD COUNSELORS THAT CAME IN FOR TWO DAYS THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO OUR EMPLOYEES TO COME IN AND SPEAK WITH COUNSELORS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON, ANYTHING THEY WANTED TO DISCUSS, WE MADE THOSE AVAILABLE FOR THEM. OUR RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DOES TAKE COMPLAINTS FROM EMPLOYEES, AND THEY WILL TAKE THOSE ANONYMOUSLY TO WHERE MANY A TIMES I'VE BEEN INFORMED OF AN ISSUE, AND THEY WILL NOT TELL ME WHO IT WAS, THEY WILL NOT EVEN TELL ME WHO -- WHAT DEPARTMENT IT IS, AND I DO NOT PUSH THEM FOR THOSE ANSWERS BECAUSE OF EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. THERE ARE EMPLOYEES WHERE THEY DO FEAR FOR WHATEVER REASON COMING FORWARD. SO, FOR ANY OF THE EMPLOYEES YOU ARE SPEAKING WITH, YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY GO TO RISK MANAGEMENT WITH ANY CONCERNS THEY HAVE, THEY CAN DO THAT ANONYMOUSLY, AND RISK MANAGEMENT WILL, EVEN TO THEIR OWN -- TO THEIR BOSS, THEY ALSO DO NOT TELL ME THE NAMES. I DON'T ASK FOR THE NAMES WHEN THEY DON'T WANT TO BE GIVEN. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT, MADAM ATTORNEY. AND, I WILL SAY THANK YOU, BUT IT GOES BACK TO -- I SAID THIS WHEN WE HAD THE MENTAL HEALTH PEOPLE IN HERE, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WON'T WALK ON THAT MENTAL HEALTH BUS TO GET THE HELP THEY NEED BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID THAT SOMEBODY IS STANDING BEHIND A TREE, LOOKING AT THEM WALK ON THAT MENTAL HEALTH BUS, OR THAT SOMEONE ON THE INSIDE OF THE MENTAL HEALTH BUS KNOWS [01:05:08] SOMEBODY IN THEIR CIRCLE, AND ALL I AM SAYING, ME AND YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS, ME AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS, I UNDERSTAND WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SET UP WITH COUNSELORS. AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE DID WITH THE RISK MANAGEMENT AND BEING ANONYMOUS. IT IS STILL NOT GETTING THROUGH BECAUSE THOSE ANONYMOUS -- WHATEVER SOME EMPLOYEES STILL THINK IT'S INSIDE THE SAME WHEELHOUSE. I DON'T KNOW HOW -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIX THAT, GUYS. BUT I NEED TO BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION TONIGHT, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT TONIGHT, BUT WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS IT IN THE FUTURE BASED ON WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE TONIGHT, BUT -- AND I TOLD THEM I WOULD BRING IT UP. I'M BRINGING IT UP. DON'T KNOW IF ANY EMPLOYEE HAS COME TO YOU GUYS, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS I DID WAS, I KIND OF TRIED TO BREAK THE GLASS BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEES AND HAVE THEM MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH, YOU KNOW, NICK OR MS. COX SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, SHE SENT ME, TOO, WHY ARE YOU HERE? BECAUSE -- >> BECAUSE OF THE CHARTER. BECAUSE WE HAVE A CHARTER. >> RIGHT BUT -- NOT ANYTHING -- YES, WE HAVE A CHARTER, MADAM MAYOR, BUT THESE EMPLOYEES ARE ALSO RESIDENTS THAT VOTE. THEY PAY TAXES IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. SO, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT POLICIES. I'M TRYING TO HELP THEM FIND THEIR VOICE, HELP THEM FIND THEIR VOICE TO GIVE IT. AND LIKE I SAID, NONE THAT MICROPHONE. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO IT BECAUSE EVERYBODY NEEDS A JOB, EVERYBODY NEEDS TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR FAMILIES, SO, WHILE WE ARE LOOKING AT ALL OF THESE POLICIES, I AM ASKING THAT THE -- YOU KNOW -- WITH THE BENEFIT OF -- YOU KNOW -- THE COMMISSION, MADAM ATTORNEY, LOOK AT SOME OF THESE POLICIES WHERE YOU THINK YOUR OFFICE NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED MORE. ONE, 1A, 1B, WHERE YOU FEEL THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED MORE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO REPORT BACK AND LET US DECIDE THAT BECAUSE WE MIGHT NOT WANT ALL THE WORK, BUT THEN AGAIN, ONCE YOU HEAR SOME OF THE STUFF THAT IS BEING SAID, YOU MIGHT -- WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? I MIGHT WANT TO BE INVOLVED, I MIGHT WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN WHATEVER IS WHATEVER, THE CHARTER, ALLOWS US TO BE INVOLVED IN. SO, THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON? >> I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE THINKING ABOUT A COUPLE THINGS, COMMISSIONER GAINES, YOU ARE RIGHT. WE ARE IN UNCHARTED WATERS. I KNOW WE HAVE A CHARTER, BUT THIS IS UNCHARTERED. AND WHAT I'VE BEEN HERE THINKING ABOUT OVER IN MY MIND IS WHAT YOU SAID, COMMISSIONER BRODRICK, RIGHT? SO, THIS BAR CONDITION SINCE THE ATTORNEY BROUGHT IT UP EARLIER, THIS IS THE ONE THING I JUST KIND OF JOTTED A NOTE ON, AND WE HAVE HEARD ON WHAT CANNOT BE DONE BASED ON WHO MR. MIMMS CANNOT HAVE CONTACT BASED ON THIS CONDITION, WHEREIN STRUGGLING WITH THIS, THOUGH, IS WE HAVE AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAS BEEN WITH US 30+ YEARS, OKAY? 26 YEARS. A LOT OF INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE, WE ARE COMING INTO A BUDGET CYCLE SYSTEM. WE HAVE WOBBLY CONTRACTS AND THINGS GOING ON THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA IS GOING ON WITH THE CITY MANAGER THAT WAS UNDER HIS DIRECTION AND HIS JURISDICTION TO DO, AND THAT'S WHAT TROUBLES ME, IS HOW DO WE LOOK AT THAT TO CONTINUE TO HAVE A CONTINUITY OF THE CITY RUNNING, NOT GETTING CAUGHT I SURPRISED BY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN CAUGHT UP, AND STILL TAPPING INTO THAT INFORMATION, IT'S STILL CIRCULATING, AND STILL ABLE TO HELP US RUN THIS CITY IN THIS TOUGH TIME? AND -- AND COMMISSIONER BRODRICK, YOUR COMMENT, YOU KNOW? THERE'S PROBABLY A LIST OF THAT, THERE'S PROBABLY A LAUNDRY LIST OF PEOPLE SOME, OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW, COMES IN AN AFFIDAVIT, SOME THAT WE DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, BUT BASED ON THOSE NAMES THEY ARE, I -- YOU KNOW? I'M AT THAT POINT WHERE I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND I AM -- I'M GLAD WE TOOK OFF WITH CALLS. THAT'S OFF THE TABLE. I HAVE NOT GOTTEN MY HEAD THERE YET EVEN WITHOUT CAUSE BECAUSE I STILL THINK THERE IS A PURPOSE AND A WAY THAT THE CITY CAN STILL BE SERVED WITH THE PERSON THAT HAS A TALENT HERE TO HELP US IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. AND SO, I WOULD ASK YOU IN THE COMMISSON, MAYOR, TO PLEASE THINK ABOUT THAT. THERE IS A WAY, I AM SURE. -- THAT WHEN YOU ASK THE QUESTION [01:10:04] OF, DO WE HAVE THE CONFIDENCE IN HIM BEING THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE, THAT IS WHERE THE BREAKS SCREECH FOR ME AT THAT POINT. AND SO, THAT'S HIS CURRENT POSITION RIGHT NOW, IT'S CITY MANAGER. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DETERMINING. COULD THAT BE A NARROW PATH THAT HE WOULD CONTINUE TO BE THE CITY MANAGER ? AND THEN WE STILL HAVE THE FAITH OF THE CITIZENS AND THE PEOPLE THAT ELECTED US ALL TO BE UP HERE? OR, DOES IT COME BACK TO -- WHERE DO WE GO, HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION -- WHICH, COMMISSIONER JEREMIAH JOHNSON, THAT'S OPTION WE LOOKED AT. HERE IS A MAN WHO HAS TO PROVIDE FOR HIS FAMILY, LIKE ALL OF US, WE HAVE ALL AT SOME POINT IN OUR PROFESSIONAL CAREERS HAPPENED TO HAVE DEALT WITH SOMETHING OF THIS NATURE. WE ALL HAV. AND SO, IT DOESN'T WAY EASY WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS. THOSE OF US LIKE MYSELF WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE BUSINESS WORLD HAVE HAD TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS ABOUT LIFESTYLES OF PEOPLE AND THEIR FAMILIES WHEN IT COMES TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND PERFORMANCE. AND RIGHT NOW, I AM STILL STUCK ON THE ACCOUNTABILITY PART OF UNDERSTANDING THE VIOLATION. AND I KNOW THAT WOULD GO FOR CAUSE. AND EVEN WITHOUT CAUSE, I STILL NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT IS , IF I'M GOING TO GO WITHOUT CAUSE ON THE TERMINATION. THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING MORE THAN ME LOOKING AT THE AFFIDAVIT OF CHARGES. YOU ARE RIGHT, COMMISSIONER GAINES. THAT'S FOR A COURT TO SETTLE. BUT OUR COURT RIGHT NOW IS PUBLIC APPEAL, CITIZENS, 50,000 OR SO PEOPLE THAT RESIDE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. AND THAT'S WHAT'S WEIGHING ON ME NOW AS WE LOOK AT THIS AND CONTEMPLATE THIS , AND AGAIN, I DON'T -- I DON'T -- I DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS NOW. I'M JUST CONTINUING TO POSE THESE QUESTIONS AS WE SIT HERE IN THE PUBLIC AND HAVE THIS DEBATE BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT, AND WE ALL HAVE ONE VOTE TO CAST. AND THERE IS FIVE OF US. AND EITHER IT'S GOING TO GO ONE WAY, OR IT'S GOING TO GO ANOTHER, BUT IT'S GOING TO GO SOME KIND OF WAY BASED ON WHO MAKES A MOTION OF WHAT WE WILL DO IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. SO, THAT'S WHAT'S WEIGHING ON ME RIGHT NOW, AND I WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. YOU KNOW? THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING THE -- RIGHT -- THE OPPORTUNITY OF EVEN CONSIDERING WITHOUT PAY , WITH BENEFITS. AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE NEED BENEFITS. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS PEOPLE OUT HERE NEED BASIC BENEFITS AND HEALTHCARE. AND, THEY ALSO NEED PAYCHECKS. YOU CANNOT GO TO THE GROCERY STORE ON GOOD CREDIT AND BENEFITS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE MONEY TO BUY THINGS AND PAY YOUR BILLS. AND SO, THIS IS -- THIS IS -- WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. I AM ANGRY WE ARE AT THIS. BUT I AM VERY ANGRY. I AM NOT ANGRY AT AN INDIVIDUAL, BUT I AM ANGRY AT WHAT MORE COULD WE HAVE DONE TO CATCH SOME OF THE STUFF ON A PREEMPTIVE BASIS OF RFPS, INTERNAL POLICIES, AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE NOT IN THIS POSITION? THIS IS A VERY, VERY TOUGH POSITION TO BE IN. IT'S NOT INSURMOUNTABLE. WE CAN OVERCOME THIS. WE WILL OVERCOME THIS. BUT IT'S A TOUGH POSITION. NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, 50% OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE WILL DISAGREE ON WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. NO MATTER WHAT. SO, I'M NOT WORRIED -- ABOUT MAKING A DECISION BE IT RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. AND SO, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT, COMMISSIONERS, MADAME MAYOR, ON CONDITION, NO CONTACT WITH WITNESSES, MADAME ATTORNEY, THIS HAS GOT ME SCRATCHING MY HEAD. >> YES, SIR. MADAME MAYOR, ONE OF THE THINGS COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON SAID, YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT PEOPLE DO NEED PAYCHECKS. AS A REMINDER, HE IS RETIRED, TECHNICALLY, BECAUSE HE'S IN DROP. SO, IF YOU MAKE A DECISION TO TERMINATE WITHOUT CAUSE OR TO CALL FOR HIS RESIGNATION, THAT DOES NOT AFFECT HIS RETIREMENT. SO, HE WILL STILL RECEIVE HIS RETIREMENT. THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD AFFECT HIS RETIREMENT IS IF HE IS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN ENUMERATED OFFENSES UNDER STATE STATUTE WHICH WOULD INCLUDE WHAT HE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH. SO, IS HE -- IF HE IS CONVICTED UNDER STATE STATUTE, AGAIN, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A TRIAL. THERE'S A PROCESS THAT EXISTS [01:15:14] THROUGH OUR RETIREMENT BOARD. THERE IS A DUE PROCESS HEARING THAT IS HELD RELATED TO REMOVAL OF FUTURE OF PENSION BENEFITS. HE WOULD STILL -- IF THAT IS REMOVED, HE WOULD RECEIVE WHAT HE HAS PAID INTO THE PENSION, HE JUST WOULD NOT RECEIVE OVER. BUT, IF YOU DO VOTE TO SEVER HIS EMPLOYMENT TONIGHT, HE WOULD STILL COLLECT HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS. >> WHEN HE IS AT THE APPROPRIATE AGE TO COLLECT IT, BECAUSE HE IS NOWHERE CLOSE -- TO THAT. >> I BELIEVE HIS RETIREMENT IS PAID NOW BECAUSE HE IS IN DROP. >> OKAY. >> HE IS 25 YEARS -- >> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO, HE WOULD BE, IF THAT'S THE CASE, ELIGIBLE -- >> I DON'T KNOW IF MS. MORRIS IS STILL HERE. SHE CAN CONFIRM. MY UNDERSTANDING IS, HE IS BEING PAID BENEFITS UNDER RETIREMENT FOR DROP CURRENTLY IN ADDITION TO HIS SALARY BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE DROP SYSTEM WORKS BECAUSE HE DOES HAVE HIS 25 YEARS IN. AND I BELIEVE MS. COX CAN TELL ME IF I AM WRONG. >> THE RETIREMENT FUNDS GET PAID INTO AN INVESTMENT ACCOUNT. THE CITY INVESTS IT FOR YOU. SO, IF YOU LEAVE, IF YOU EXIT DROP, THOSE FUNDS COME BACK TO YOU. >> YOU HAVE TO EXERCISE THAT. YOU HAVE TO EXERCISE THAT. >> THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED DROP DEFERRED, RIGHT? >> IT IS THE RETIREMENT OPTION PROGRAM. >> MADAME MAYOR? SO, A COUPLE COMMENTS, SO, SO, I'M GOING TO SHARE WITH Y'ALL SOME PERSONAL EFFECTS I HAVE WITNESSED IN MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER. I THINK THIS IS VALID TO SHARE WITH YOU ALL. ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS IN MY LIFE I HAVE WITNESSED A LONG-STANDING EMPLOYEE BE TERMINATED. ONE IS ACTUALLY IN THE MINISTRY OVER, YOU KNOW, 20+ YEAR EMPLOYEE. AND HERE IS WHY I AM RELATING IT TO THIS SITUATION. IS THAT MR. MIMMS DEDICATED HIS CAREER COMING OUT IN 1998 TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND DEDICATED HIS 26 WHATEVER YEARS IT IS AT THIS POINT TO SERVING THE CITY. IF YOU WERE TO CALL HIM ON THE PHONE ONCE ALL THIS IS DONE, HE HAS DEDICATED HIS ENTIRE LIFE AND CAREER TO THAT. WE ALL WITNESSED IT, WE ALL KNOW IT, WE ARE PART OF THE PROCESS AND HIS RECORD AS FAR AS SERVING THIS GREAT CITY. SO, THE EXPERIENCES I HAVE HAD, WHAT I WANT TO SHARE IS THERE IS A PART OF ME THAT IS ALSO CONCERNED THAT IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS , I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE DUE PROCESS POINT OF VIEW, BECAUSE IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, SOMETIMES, IT IS EASIER -- YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY, THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME IT'S EASIER TO MAKE THE DECISION, OKAY, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, I'VE BEEN IN MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER WITH INDIVIDUALS WHAT WORKED FOR ME, IT'S TIME TO PART WAYS, AND YOU PART WAYS. AND THAT'S THE EASY ONE, RIGHT? IT'S NOT ALWAYS EASY TO BE DONE IN THAT MOMENT. BUT IT'S A DECISION THAT CAN BE MADE. IT'S FINITE, CLEAR, AND NOW. SO, IN THIS SITUATION, I AM TAKING IT VERY CRITICALLY INTERNALLY TO ME THAT IT'S NOT SO CLEAR FOR THAT. AND THAT IS WHY I BROUGHT UP THE POINT EARLIER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITHOUT PAY BECAUSE OF DUE PROCESS, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE -- THE -- THE COURT DATE, HOW THAT'S GOING TO PLAY OUT, WHAT THE PLEA IS GOING TO BE, WHAT IS THE FINDING GOING TO BE? MAYBE THERE IS SOME THING ELSE THAT HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM HALLWAYS AND DOORWAYS THAT IS NEGOTIATED? I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE THERE IS -- DISCOVERY? THERE MIGHT NOT BE MORE THAN THE PIECE OF PAPER THAT WAS ON THE PUBLIC AFFIDAVIT, RIGHT? MAYBE THERE IS MORE. WE DON'T KNOW. BUT I CAN TELL YOU, AND I'M GOING TO SHARE MORE OF WHAT I READ THAT YOU AND I -- I THINK I SAID THIS LAST MEETING, YOU AND I WERE ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME, THAT THE CITY WAS FOCUSED ON THE LINCOLN PARK COMMUNITY LIKE IT IS TODAY, AND WE WERE TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING IN THE WORLD , IN THAT VICINITY OF AVENUE D TO MAKE SOMETHING NEAT, FUNKY, REMEMBER? WE HAD CONVERSATIONS. WE HAD PUBLIC MEETINGS. WE HAD ALL KINDS OF THINGS. COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER, GOD BLESS HIM, HE WAS SITTING RIGHT HERE, AND HE HAD CONVERSATIONS. HIS HISTORY WAS, HEY, THERE IS THE LINCOLN THEATER, WE HAVE TO BE OPEN-MINDED. I KNOW I'M GETTING INTO DETAIL ABOUT THIS PROJECT, AND I AM -- I'M JUST SHARING WITH YOU WAS ALREADY ON PUBLIC RECORD! SO, WE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF INPUT. THERE WAS A LOT OF WHAT IF SCENARIOS AND CONVERSATION PIECES. SO, WHY AM I TELLING THIS? WHY AM I TALKING ABOUT THIS? BECAUSE [01:20:04] HERE, I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO 26 YEARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE, NOT AN EASY JOB, NOT AN EASY CAREER ON SOME LEVELS, A LOT OF RESPECT FROM THIS OFFICE, A LOT OF RESPECT FROM INDIVIDUALS IN THE PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS, BECAUSE OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, HE HAS LED GROUPS ENGINEERING, DESIGNING, STORM WEATHER SYSTEMS, DESIGNING ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS THAT HAVE PROTECTED THIS CITY, YOU KNOW, USING HIS PROFESSIONAL ABILITIES BECAUSE HE GREW UP IN THIS COMMUNITY, WENT TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, WENT AWAY TO SCHOOL, CAME BACK TO HIS BELOVED CITY. SO, I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT HISTORY IN MY TWO EXPERIENCES WHERE I AM MAKING THE DECISION RIGHT THIS SECOND BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT EASY FOR MYSELF, BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, AND I WILL SHARE WITH YOU ADDITIONAL -- ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY ON THE RIGHT DIRECTION . FOR SIX YEARS, I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO MR. MIMS ABOUT THE PROCUREMENT POLICY , WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THAT THE LOVE OF MINE BECAUSE WHEN I SERVED IN GOVERNMENT. SO, I'M TELLING YOU, WE'VE GOT TO REVIEW THIS SUCKER. IT'S OUT OF DATE LIKE HALF OUR CODES ARE OUT OF DATE FROM 1960 WHATEVER. SO, YOU KEEP ON KEEPING ON, AND THAT'S WHAT THE CITY HAS DONE. WE'VE DONE A GOOD JOB WITH THAT. AND MISS COX HAS TAKEN THAT TO TASK. SHE IS WORKING ON THAT, TOO. AND GOVERNMENT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROBABLY CASE LAW, RULES, WHATEVER, I DON'T SPEAK THAT JARGON. IT SAYS THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE PUNISHED FOR GOING BACK AND CORRECTING SOMETHING. IF YOU HAVE A POLICY THAT'S OUT OF DATE, GO CORRECT IT. IT WILL BE OKAY. RIGHT? THEN WHATEVER RULINGS AND JUDGMENTS COME OUT OF THAT, BUT -- I AM SHARING THAT BECAUSE I HAVE GOT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS DEDICATED HIS CAREER, GOT AN INDIVIDUAL THAT'S A LIFELONG RESIDENT CITY OF FT. PIERCE, HE HAS GOT SOME ISSUES, WE ALL KNOW ABOUT THE ISSUES. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO PLAY OUT IN THE COURTHOUSE AND DOWN THE STREET. I HAVE GOT -- WE HAVE GOT AN ACTING MANAGER, CITY MANAGER THAT IS DOING A SUPERB JOB, AND I HAVE ACTUALLY HEARD SOME -- YOU KNOW -- IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT HOW POSITIVE THINGS ARE GOING, ON THE EMPLOYEES SIDE, COMMISSIONER, SO, YOU KNOW, WE ARE AT A GOOD SPOT RIGHT THIS SECOND. BUT I WILL BE HONEST WITH YOU ALL, I DON'T LIKE THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF RIGHT NOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE PAY, I DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE ME FEEL GOOD, AND AS A TAXPAYER, IT DOESN'T MAKE ME FEEL GOOD AS THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR THE CITY'S BUDGET. >> IS A TOUGH ONE, YEAH. >> IT'S TOUGH. I'M LAYING IT ALL OUT THERE. ADMINISTERED OF LEAVE WITHOUT PAY IS WHERE I'M AT RIGHT THIS SECOND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU ALL. I'M NOT READY TO CUT THE TIE. I'M NOT READY TO MAKE THE WITHOUT CAUSE DETERMINATION TODAY. >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A DATE CERTAIN? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT OPEN-ENDED? >> I THINK DATE CERTAIN WOULD BE -- BECAUSE WE CAN CALL IT AND SAY WE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION AT ANY POINT, RIGHT? SO, WE MEET THREE TIMES A MONTH. I DON'T WANT TO BE TOO LONG IN THE OPEN-ENDED THIS. HONESTLY. I REALLY DON'T. IT'S NOT SMART. >> YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT UNTIL THE TRIAL, BECAUSE THAT'S A LONG WAY OFF. >> NO, I'M NOT TRYING TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD EITHER. I THINK THERE'S A PART OF ME THAT'S TALKING ABOUT THE HUMAN ELEMENT, THE PROFESSIONAL ELEMENT, AND, YOU KNOW, THE -- THE COMPASSION, AND THE RESPONSE ABILITY. >> YEAH, YOU HAVE TO WEIGH THEM BOTH. >> SO, COULD I MAKE A DATE? SURE, I COULD TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, IT COULD BE -- WELL, IT SHOULD BE BEFORE. NOT SELFISHLY. FOR CONTINUITY OF THIS COMMISSION, IT SHOULD BE WITHIN THE NEXT -- WELL -- HOW MANY DAYS DO I HAVE LEFT? 60 TO 75 DAYS, WHATEVER THAT TIME. IS. >> EARLY DECEMBER? >> I WANT TO BE ON THE RECORD, IN NOVEMBER, RIGHT? I WANT THIS ON THE RECORD. THIS IS NOT FOR SELFISH REASONS. IF YOU FEEL THAT'S APPROPRIATE, YOU KNOW, SO, IF IT'S OCTOBER DATE, THAT'S EVEN BETTER BECAUSE THAT'S EVEN QUICKER, MAYBE IT'S A MONTH. I'M NOT TRYING TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, I'M NOT TRYING TO APPLY MY JEREMIAH JOHNSON COMMISSIONER -- YOU KNOW -- PARTIAL OPINION . SO -- >> AT THE END OF ADMINISTERED OF LEAVE, DO YOU THINK WE ARE GOING TO KNOW ANYTHING MORE, ANYTHING BETTER? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE THINKING? >> I HAVE -- I HAVE HOPES. I HAVE HOPE. >> MADAM MAYOR, IF I CAN ADDRESS THAT, I WANT TO [01:25:02] PIGGYBACK ON COMMISSIONER JEREMIAH JOHNSON -- I THINK IMPLORES US TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION. I WANT TO GO BACK TO MY IDEA OF PUTTING TOGETHER THIS COMMISSION TO LOOK AT OUR POLICIES AND GIVE US SOME FEEDBACK AND RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO UTILIZE OUR EXPERTS AND OUR CITIZENS WHO PRESIDE IN OUR COMMUNITY, RETIRED JUDGES, RETIRED ATTORNEYS, PRACTICING -- WHATEVER IT IS, THAT CAN LOOK AT OUR POLICY, PARTICULARLY AROUND HR. I KNOW I WOULD FEEL BETTER KNOWING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE ADDRESSING SOME OF THESE THINGS, THERE ARE SOME CRACKS THERE, BUT I WOULD FEEL BETTER IN THAT 60 DAY TIME KNOWING THERE'S MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THAT, HAVING HAD THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH THAT COMMISSION, THAT COMMISSION INFORMING US OF THAT. I THINK IF WE -- IF WE LOOK AT -- IF EACH COMMISSION LOOKED AT THAT AND REVIEWED THESE HR POLICIES, I THINK WE COULD COME BACK AND HAVE THEM GET GOING VERY QUICKLY AND BE OF SERVICE TO US LIKE MANY OF THE OTHER COMMITTEES THAT VOLUNTEER TO BE SERVICE TO THE CITY COMMISSION. AND OBVIOUSLY, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO -- HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC AS WELL, OBVIOUSLY, BUT HAVE THAT OPEN DIALOGUE SO THAT WE CAN ALL GO AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE -- WHAT IS GOING ON HERE FROM THE HR PERSPECTIVE, NOT ANYTHING DUE TO CRIMINAL CASE, NOTHING WITH THAT, THIS IS -- BECAUSE -- AS AN HR PROFESSIONAL THAT HAS BEEN IN THIS ARENA, I AM UNEASY ABOUT SOME OF OUR POLICIES. AND IF YOU ARE ASKING ME TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ON EMPLOYMENT BASED ON OUR POLICIES RIGHT NOW, THAT'S WHERE I'M HAVING CONCERN. AND I THINK WE CAN USE THESE 60 DAYS TO DO THAT, TO GET US SOMETHING -- THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT TO ADD ON TO WHAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SAID. >> MADAM MAYOR, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. BECAUSE I AM HEARING -- THIS IS BASED ON THE LAST TWO OF COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S , -- QUESTIONS. HOW DOES THIS WORK? AND I'M ON THE RETIREMENT BOARD, BUT I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT SUBJECT. >> YOU ARE CERTIFIED, TO. >> UNCERTIFIED, THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION. ANYONE CAN LEARN THE QUESTION TOGETHER. ALL RIGHT. THE VOTE COMES WITHOUT -- WITHOUT ADMINISTRATION LEAVE, WITHOUT PAY, RIGHT? IT'S BASED -- SAY THAT MOTION COMES, THE MOTION COMES, MY QUESTION IS, HOW DOES THAT -- DOES THAT AFFECT HIS RETIREMENT? IS MONEY STILL NOT GOING IN? WHAT'S THE WHOLE -- ANYTHING -- THAT HE IS JUST -- HE WILL STILL BE -- MY UNDERSTANDING, ADMINISTRATION LEAVE WITHOUT PAY MEANS HE IS STILL EMPLOYED WITH THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE , TECHNICALLY, HE'S JUST NOT GETTING PAID. BUT, HE IS -- I'M SORRY! I'M SORRY, JOHN. YOU KNOW -- >> MS. MORRIS! >> WE ARE HAPPY TO SEE YOU! >> I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT ALL PLAYS IN SO I COULD HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE. >> MS. MORRIS. >> MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, CURRENTLY, MR. MIMMS IS TECHNICALLY RETIRED! SO, THERE IS NO CONTRIBUTION GOING INTO PENSION FOR HIM. HE IS WORKING, BUT THERE IS NO PENSION CONTRIBUTION. SO, IF IT IS WITHOUT PAY, THERE IS NOTHING AS IT RELATES TO PENSION. HE WOULDN'T BE RECEIVING IT BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE TO BE -- YOU KNOW, ACCEPTING EMPLOYMENT IN ORDER TO GET THE PENSION. BUT THERE WOULD BE NO CONTRIBUTION GOING TO IT IF HE'S NOT RECEIVING, HE IS NOT PAYING CONTRIBUTION ANYWAY. >> I REMEMBER THAT, I JUST WANTED TO -- >> YOU WERE JUST CHECKING? >> NO, BECAUSE, BECAUSE, SITTING IN THE CLASSES, SITTING IN EVERYTHING, TONIGHT, YOU KNOW, WITH EVERYTHING GOING ON, I WOULD RATHER NOT ASSUME THAT I WAS RIGHT, SO I WOULD RATHER ASK A QUESTION AND LET YOU EXPLAIN SO EVERYBODY CAN HEAR IT, SO, BECAUSE I FIGURED -- HE IS TECHNICALLY NOT RETIRED BECAUSE HE IS IN DROP, RIGHT? NO, THANK YOU FOR THAT. THAT'S MY QUESTION I NEEDED ANSWER. THANK YOU. >> MISS COX? >> JUST A FOLLOW-UP BASED ON OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED, MS. MORRIS MAY NOT HAVE HEARD, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I ANSWERED AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I DID IT CORRECTLY WAS THAT IF HE IS ON LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE HIS RETIREMENT WOULD HAVE TO EXIT THE DROP PROGRAM. >> HE WOULD HAVE TO EXIT EMPLOYMENT. IMPLANT WOULD HAVE TO STOP. >> BEING WITHOUT PAY DOES NOT ENTITLE HIM TO RECEIVE HIS TYPICAL RETIREMENT MONIES THAT HE WOULD IF HE LEFT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR. I THINK COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON ASKED. >> TECHNICALLY, HE'S GETTING A RETIREMENT CHECK BUT IT GOES INTO A DROP ACCOUNT. HE DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO IT UNTIL HE EXITS THIS EMPLOYMENT. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> SO, TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, AND MS. HEDGES COMMENTS [01:30:02] EARLIER, ADMINISTERED OF LEAVE WITHOUT PAY WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ADD A SECOND STEP TO THAT TO ASK HIM IF HE WANTS TO RESIGN. MS. HEDGES, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE OPTION OF RESIGNATION? HOW DID YOU PHRASE THAT? >> SO, SORRY, MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, THE WAY THAT THE CONTRACT SPECIFICALLY READS RELATED TO THE FORMAL REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS A FORMAL OFFER TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION MADE BY THE MAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE CITY COMMISSION AT A DULY AUTHORIZED MEETING. SO, YOU WOULD HAVE -- >> YOU CAN LINK THE TWO. I AM COMING BACK. I KEEP CIRCLING BACK AROUND TO THE SAME POINT. IS THERE CONFIDENCE HE CAN EXECUTE HIS JOB TWO MONTHS FROM NOW BECAUSE JEREMIAH IS SUGGESTING THAT WE MOVE THIS OUT ON THE CALENDAR. THERE COULD BE SOME FACTUAL DATA THAT COMES FORWARD THAT CHANGES THIS ENTIRE SCENARIO. I AGREE WITH YOU. BUT BASED ON HIS BAIL REQUIREMENTS, IT APPEARS TO ME HE IS INCAPABLE TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH UNLESS HE IS WILLING TO BREACH THOSE, WHICH I WOULD INTEND TO DOUBT. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO CONDUCT HIS POSITION. IT'S JUST NOT. SO, ARE WE DELAYING THE INEVITABLE? DO WE ASK HIM TO RESIGN LINKED WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITHOUT PAY? -- AS AN OPTION, AS AN EXIT STRATEGY POTENTIALLY? I WOULD SAY, YES, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO FAIL, BUT I COULD SEE DIRECT LINKAGE BETWEEN THOSE TWO BECAUSE IN MY OPINION, JUST FROM A MANAGERIAL PERSPECTIVE, IF I COULDN'T COMMUNICATE WITH MY STAFF, MY OFFICE CLOSES IN A FEW DAYS. YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT, ESPECIALLY -- LET'S ASSUME THAT HE -- HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY. WELL, THIS IS THE CEO RIGHT HERE. HE CAN'T COMMUNICATE WITH THE CEO OF THE BOARD. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT LOGICALLY COULD WORK. I AM VERY TROUBLED BY THAT UNDERPINNING TO SAY REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS, THE OUTCOME IS THE SAME. HE CAN'T PERFORM THE FUNCTION EXCEPT IN SOME DRASTICALLY LIMITED BASIS WHICH TELLS ME HE COULDN'T EVEN SIT ON HIS DAIS AND COMMUNICATE TO THIS COMMISSION. SO, I'M SOMEWHAT DISTURBED BY THAT, BUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, I THINK, IS AN INTERIM STEP. I AM AGREEING WITH COMMISSIONER J JOHNSON, BUT LINKING THAT TO THE REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION TO SEE IF HE WANTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS RETIREMENT PACKAGE, WALK AWAY WHOLE, WHILE THAT IS STILL A POTENTIAL OUTCOME. SO, I SEE LINKAGE TO ALL THREE OF THOSE ISSUES. >> I HEAR YOU, COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR WITH MADAM ATTORNEY. BECAUSE I READ THE CONTRACT, JUST READ IT AGAIN, REAL QUICK. CAN -- AS COMMISSIONER BRODERICK SAID, CAN BOTH OF THEM BE LINKED? CAN IT BE LEAVE WITHOUT PAY WITHOUT THE OPTION OF , YOU KNOW, VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT? I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. RIGHT? >> YES. >> SO, THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION. >> SO, MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, SO, THE WAY I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT COMMISSIONER BRODERICK IS SAYING, ESSENTIALLY, YOU SWITCH HIS ADMIN LEAVE FROM WITH PAY TO WITHOUT PAY. THERE WOULD BE A VOTE FOR AN OFFER, A FORMAL OFFER TO ACCEPT HIS RESIGNATION, YOU GIVE HIM A DEADLINE, I'M LINKING MAYBE SOME THINGS COMMISSIONER JEREMIAH JOHNSON HAS SAID WITH THE 60 DAYS, YOU SAID TWO WEEKS, I HEARD, SO, IT GIVES HIM THAT PERIOD OF TIME TO DISCUSS WHAT IT MIGHT BE, GIVE THEM TIME TO DECIDE WHETHER HE IS GOING TO SUBMIT HIS RESIGNATION PURSUANT TO HIS REQUEST. >> THAT GOES BACK TO COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON'S COMMENTS, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE MONEY TO GO TO THE GROCERY STORE. >> RIGHT. THAT ROUTE YOU ARE PROPOSING DOES GIVE HIM THE 120 DAYS OF SEVERANCE AS WELL. AND I -- I APOLOGIZE IF I FORGOT TO MENTION THIS IN THE BEGINNING WHEN I WAS SPEAKING, BUT A LOT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT HEALTH INSURANCE AND BENEFITS. SO, BECAUSE HE IS IN DROP, BECAUSE HE REACHED THAT POINT, IF HE IS SEPARATED FROM THE CITY, HE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO STILL OBTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE, HE WOULD STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT GOING FORWARD. DURING THE 120 DAYS OF SEVERANCE, THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE 120 DAYS OF SEVERANCE, BUT DAY 121 ON, HEALTH INSURANCE, HE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP TONIGHT, AND I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, BECAUSE IT CAME FROM US -- I WANT TO [01:35:09] THANK COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON AND HOLD YOU TO THAT ABOUT WITHOUT PAY, BUT WITH BENEFITS. >> I AGREE WITH THAT. >> WITH THE BENEFITS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE? >> YES, SIR. AND MS. MORRIS, SHE IS STILL HERE, SHE DID NOT LEAVE US YET. WHAT SHE INFORMED ME WAS, HE -- THE CITY WOULD CONTINUE TO PAY HIS PORTION OF THAT HEALTH INSURANCE, DENTAL INSURANCE, WHATEVER BENEFITS HE HAS, BUT ANYTHING ADDITIONAL, ANY DEPENDENTS, OR ANY BY UPS THAT HE HAS, HE WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THOSE. THE WAY IT CURRENTLY WORKS, IT COMES OUT OF YOUR PAYCHECK. HE WOULD HAVE TO COME IN AND PAY IT BECAUSE WITHOUT PAY LEAVE, HE IS NOT GETTING THAT PAYCHECK. SO, TO KEEP THOSE INTACT HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE CITY FOR THE ADDITIONAL ABOUT WHAT HE IS ENTITLED TO. >> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR, IF THERE'S ANY TYPE OF CONSENSUS, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT. >> I AM READY FOR A MOTION. ANYBODY -- >> MAYOR, IF I COULD COMMENT, COMMISSIONER, YEAH, I'M READY FOR YOU TO MAKE THE MOTION. I THINK IT'S A GOOD RECOMMENDATION. IT REALLY TRANSFERS THE OPTION, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT DOESN'T -- I WOULD SAY TRANSFERS. IT GIVES HIM THE OPTION. COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TAKE-HOME PAY, YOU KNOW, MAKING IT THROUGH LIFE . RIGHT? AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, SO, HE HAS AN EXIT STRATEGY. >> HE HAS A STRATEGY. >> MAYOR, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION. BE PREPARED TO JUMP IN, PLEASE. THAT WE WOULD SHIFT MR. MIMMS' STATUS TO ADMINISTERED OF LEAVE WITHOUT PAY BUT WITH BENEFITS INTACT , AND IF IT'S THAT ACCRUED TO HIS POSITION, ALL BY UPS AND FAMILY RESPONSE ABILITIES WOULD REMAIN HIS RESPONSE ABILITY TO PAY, AND AN OFFER OF RESIGNATION BE PRESENTED TO HIM. >> AND MAY I ASK, YOU ARE INDICATING THAT THE COMMISSION IS WILLING TO ACCEPT HIS RESIGNATION? >> YES. THAT IS IN THE MOTION. >> A FORMAL OFFER TO ACCEPT RESIGNATION MADE BY THE MAJORITY. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> QUESTION, JUST TO BE CLEAR, IF HE EXERCISES THE OPTION OF RESIGNATION IN THE SEVERANCE, IT'S A SEVERANCE, CORRECT? YOU WILL OVER THAT? >> HE WOULD GET THE SEVERANCE, 120 DAYS OF SEVERANCE DURING THAT 120 DAYS THE CITY DOES PAY FOR HIS BENEFITS. AFTER THAT 120 DAYS, HE WOULD THEN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS BENEFITS. AND MAY I ASK, I DON'T -- AND I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A TIMELINE. IT DOES -- DO YOU WANT YOUR MOTION TO INCLUDE A TIMELINE? >> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY DISCUSSION. >> IS THERE AN INPUT AS TO WHAT YOU THINK WOULD BE REASONABLE? 30 DAYS? >> WHAT WAS -- WHAT WAS THE FILING OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY? WHAT WAS THE DATE? >> ARE YOU ASKING THE ARRAIGNMENT DATE? >> THE ARRAIGNMENT DATE. >> I BELIEVE ACTUALLY, IF MY MEMORY IS CORRECT, HE HAS PLED NOT GUILTY THROUGH WRITING. IF YOU GIVE ME ONE SECOND I CAN CHECK THE CLERK'S WEBSITE. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> YES, SIR. SO, ON -- SORRY, IT KICKED ME OUT. GIVE ME ONE SECOND TO LOG BACK IN. SO, THE ARRAIGNMENT DATE WAS ORIGINALLY SET FOR SEPTEMBER 26TH OF 2024. HE DID, THROUGH WRITTEN PLEADING THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY ON THE 10TH OF SEPTEMBER, HE PLED NOT GUILTY , SO, BASICALLY, THAT ARRAIGNMENT DATE GETS CANCELED. SO, HIS NEXT HEARING DATE IS WHAT IS CALLED A DOCKET CALL WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A STATUS CHECK TO SEE IF THE CASE IS READY FOR TRIAL OR NOT. AND THAT IS CURRENTLY SET FOR OCTOBER 29TH AT 9:00 A.M. >> THAT'S A TUESDAY? SO -- I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO GET A RESPONSE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER PRETTY QUICKLY. 30 DAYS? I WOULD SUGGEST 30 DAYS. >> BEFORE THE 29TH? THE 30 DAYS WOULD COME BEFORE THAT. >> I WOULD SAY 45. >> NOVEMBE 5TH IS THE TUESDAY -- WE HAVE A MEETING, NOVEMBER 4TH IS THE FIRST MONDAY OF THE MONTH. SO, WE COULD RESERVE THE FIFTH . [01:40:06] >> I AM GOOD. >> THAT THE ELECTION DAY. >> YEAH. THERE IS A LITTLE THING HAPPENING CALLED AN ELECTION. >> THAT WOULD BE ALL RIGHT WITH ME. >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON, THOSE DATES ARE IRRELEVANT. >> NO STRESS -- OH, WOW, CLAPS. YOU PICK THE DATE. I AM GOOD. YOU HAVE A MEETING ON THE FOURTH? >> WE DO. >> WHY DON'T WE MAKE IT FOR THAT? WE CAN GET A REPORT OF STATUS ON THE FOURTH. >> OKAY. >> TO BE CLEAR, IS THE DEADLINE FOR HIM TO TENDER HIS RESIGNATION, IT'S NOVEMBER 4TH PURSUANT TO YOUR MOTION? AND IS THAT SECONDED, COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON? A >> IT IS STILL SECONDED, YES. >> OKAY. ARE WE READY TO VOTE? CALL THE ROLE, PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? COMMISSIONER GAINES? COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON? COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON? YES, MA'AM. MAYOR HUDSON? >> YES, MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT. NEXT -- >> I -- SO -- >> YES, MA'AM. SORRY, TO BE CLEAR, I AM TAKING THAT TO MEAN NUMBER TWO IS NOW MOOT, THAT WE WILL NOT BE PROCEEDING AT LEAST AT THIS TIME WITH AN INVESTIGATION. AND SO, THEN, THAT BRINGS US TO NUMBER THREE, THE STATUS OF MS. COX AS THE ACTING CITY MANAGER . AT THIS POINT, MR. MIMMS IS STILL EMPLOYED AS THE CITY MANAGER, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE SPECIFICALLY A LEGAL REASON YOU WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE HER AS THE ACTING CITY MANAGER, BUT OF COURSE, IT IS IN YOUR DISCRETION IF YOU WANT HER TO REMAIN IN OPPOSITION OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE SOMEONE ELSE TO FILL THAT ROLE. >> DO WE NEED A MOTION? >> I AM COMFORTABLE WITH MS. COX REMAINING AS ACTING. >> I AM, TOO. >> YES, ABSOLUTELY. >> DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR THAT? >> WOULD YOU LIKE A MOTION? >> YES, MA'AM. BECAUSE WE WERE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING IT. IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO DO SO. >> CAN WE HAVE THIS ISSUE AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 4TH? >> COMMISSIONER, I THINK WE SHOULD, BECAUSE AT SOME POINT, AT SOME POINT, ON NOVEMBER 4TH OR WHATEVER, AT SOME POINT, A DECISION IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE MADE BECAUSE IT SHE IS ACTING CITY MANAGER, SO AT SOME POINT, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION TO, YOU KNOW, BUT OUT WHATEVER YOU WANT TO PUT OUT OR MAKE A DECISION FROM TAKING THE ACTING TO THE CITY MANAGER. I DON'T KNOW -- IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. I ALREADY HAVE A HEADACHE! I DON'T WANT TO RAIN ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. BUT THAT'S THE OTHER ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. >> THERE'S A VACANCY. >> THERE IS A VACANCY. AT SOME POINT, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT, AND ME, PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT US FIVE SHOULD DEAL WITH IT BECAUSE IT HAPPENED ON OUR WATCH. SO, BEFORE YOU LEAVE, BEFORE YOU LEAVE, I THINK WE SHOULD DEAL WITH IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT FAIR, ME, PERSONALLY, FOR THAT, YOU KNOW, IF OTHER PEOPLE, UP IN THESE -- IN THESE SEATS AFTER THE FOURTH, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE DEALING WITH SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T CREATE. SO, THAT'S -- THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT. >> DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I MEAN, I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT MS. COX CONTINUES ACTING AS CITY MANAGER , AND WE BRING BACK UP THE DISCUSSION OF NOVEMBER 4TH. >> SECOND. >> THERE IS A MOTION AND SECOND. EVERYBODY READY TO VOTE? CALL THE ROLE, PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? COMMISSIONER GAINES? COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON? COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON? ? >> BEFORE WE LEAVE, CITY COMMISSION, I JUST WANTED TO -- COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON BROUGHT UP A GREAT IDEA ABOUT A REVIEW , I DON'T KNOW IF BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC, IF WE SHOULD DISCUSS THAT ANY FURTHER, YOU CAN -- YOU CAN'T CALL ME ON THE PHONE, PUT IT ON THE AGENDA, MIGHT AS WELL TALK ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW, WE ARE OPEN, IN THE PUBLIC, HERE WE ARE, IS THAT -- IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD -- >> I CERTAINLY THINK OUR PERSONNEL POLICIES SHOULD BE REVIEWED, AND SHOULD BE -- WE SHOULD BE ACQUAINTED -- I AM PERSONALLY NOT READY TO DO A COMMISSION MYSELF. I THINK -- DON'T WE HAVE -- HASN'T SOMEBODY IN THE LAST -- TWO YEARS, LET'S SAY, DIDN'T WE HAVE A PERSONNEL ATTORNEY HELP US REWRITE THE PERSONNEL -- AM I REMEMBERING THAT RIGHT? >> WE HAVE -- WE ADOPTED NEW PERSONNEL RULES AND PROCEDURES. THEY ARE UNDER REVIEW AGAIN. CURRENTLY, THEY ARE BEING LOOKED AT. AND -- >> WHO IS LOOKING AT THEM? [01:45:07] >> ANGELIQUE LYONS IS AN ATTORNEY. I DON'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE FIRM, BUT SHE HAS BEEN OUR ATTORNEY FOR THESE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. YOU ALSO HAVE YOUR CIVIL-SERVICE APPEALS BOARD, THAT IS TASKED WITH REVIEWING PERSONNEL RULES, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, AND I AM NOT 100% SURE ON THE RULES, BUT I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO MAKE SWEEPING CHANGES TO THE RULES WE HAVE UNION CONTRACTS IN PLACE THAT MAY COME INTO PLAY. SO, I THINK THAT MAY BE IMPACTFUL AS WELL. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES ? >> META-MAYOR, SINCE WE HAVE SOMEONE REVIEWING THEM, IS IT IN THE CODE OR IN THE -- YOU KNOW, IN THE RULES TO -- ON OUR NEXT MEETING? YOU KNOW? OR THE NEXT MEETING HAVE HER, SOMEONE FROM HER OFFICE COME AND GIVE US THE STATUS OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE REVIEW OF THE -- THE RULES AND WHERE WE ARE SO WE CAN TALK TO HER, AND WE CAN THROW THESE SUGGESTIONS OUT TO A CIVIL SERVANT OR -- OR COMMISSIONER AND SEE WHERE SHE IS OR WHERE THAT FIRM IS? I DON'T -- I'M JUST -- I'M THROWING OUT THERE BECAUSE I WOULD LOVE FOR THAT TO HAPPEN SO THE PUBLIC CAN ALSO BE AWARE OF WHAT IS GOING ON DURING THE REVIEW WHEN IT IS HAPPENING. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT, MADAME ATTORNEY, I'M JUST -- I'M JUST TRYING -- WE ARE -- WE ARE STAGED RIGHT NOW IN OUR CITY THAT WE NEED TO PUT STUFF ON SEE WHAT WE ARE SEEING INSTEAD OF BRINGING IT TO THE TABLE AFTER IT'S COMPLETE AND SAYING THIS IS WHAT IT IS. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW, SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION. >> YES SIR, META-MAYOR, I WOULD NEED TO COMMUNICATE WITH HER TO SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING SHE COULD DO, AND THAT'S SOMETHING SHE FEELS COUNTABLE DOING, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT COULD BE DONE AS QUICKLY AS THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE IT IS NOT THAT FAR OFF. >> THAT'S JUST ME. >> WE CAN HAVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH HER ABOUT THAT STATUS AND PROVIDING AN UPDATE TO THE COMMISSION. >> AND I -- WE WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK WITH HR TO SEE WHERE THEY ARE IN THE REVIEW IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY -- IF THEY ARE BEING REVIEWED, CORRECT? >> COME ON! I WAS GOING TO ASK -- >> I WAS GOING TO ASK AFTER HE'S DONE -- I DON'T BREAK ANY PROMISES. >> CHAIR, I WILL SPEAK TO THE MANAGER. THE NAME OF THE FIRM INAUDIBLE ] BROOKE SMITH AND PROPHET, LLP. SO, THEY ARE A LOCAL ATTORNEY HERE, WHEN I GOT TO THE CITY, IS ONE OF OUR LABELER ATTORNEYS WHO REVIEWS PROCESSES AND STUFF, WHEN WE HAVE AN ISSUE, IF THERE SOMETHING I NEED TO REACH OUT TO, SHE'S THE ONE TO CONTACT. WHEN I FIRST GOT TO THE CITY, SHE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING IT. SHE GOT BOGGED DOWN WITH CHANGES AND STUFF FOR WHAT WAS GOING ON. SHE AND I HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH SHAY JOHNSON AS WELL, AND WE WORKED OUT, YOU KNOW, SHE SENDING HER NOTES AND STUFF LIKE THAT. THEY ARE STILL BEING WORKED ON, THERE ARE CHANGES WE WANT TO MAKE. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CHANGES SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE, SO, THE FINAL REVIEW WAS GOING TO BE BACK WITH HER ONCE I KIND OF GATHERED THOSE UP WITH HER NOTES AND EVERYTHING. SO, RIGHT NOW FOR HER TO COME AND TALK TO, SHE'S GOING TO SAY THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT. >> SO, WE NEED YOU TO CALL? WE NEED YOU TO COME AND TELL US WHERE WE ARE IF THERE IS PROPER, MADAME ATTORNEY, WHERE WE ARE ON THE REVIEW AND WHAT YOU -- WHAT YOU -- WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT WHERE WE ARE IS THAT -- IS THAT SOMETHING YOU COULD DO IF THAT'S -- IF THAT'S PERMISSIBLE, MADAME ATTORNEY? MAYOR, I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING WRONG, SO I AM TRYING TO GET IT OUT SO -- WE BE ON THE SAME PAGE, SO WE DON'T GO THROUGH THIS BECAUSE THIS REVIEW NEEDS TO BE DONE RIGHT AND I -- THESE -- THESE -- POLICY PROCEDURES NEED TO BE RIGHT. >> META-MAYOR, ALL CHANGES TO THE PERSONNEL RULES WILL COME BACK TO YOU FOR APPROVAL. THEY DON'T GET IMPLANTED WITHOUT YOUR APPROVAL SO YOU WILL SEE EVERY CHANGE THAT GETS MADE. MY ONLY APPREHENSION, WHAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING IS IF HR THINGS, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS BUT OUR EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY SAYS, NO, YOU CAN'T BECAUSE OF THIS, IF WE PUT IT OUT THERE AS SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO, DOES THAT CAUSE US MORE OF A PROBLEM? >> WE COULD HAVE INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS TO BEGIN WITH. >> THAT'S -- THAT'S WHERE I WANTED TO GO. WE NEED SOME TYPE OF BRIEFING, EVEN IF IT'S -- IF IT'S NOT HERE, IT'S SO IT WOULD COME ALONG AND ASK QUESTIONS, MADAME MAYOR, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING, IF WE NEED A SPECIAL MEETING JUST TO HEAR THAT INFORMATION TO HAVE DELIBERATIONS AMONGST US AND THE PUBLIC IS WHAT WE ARE HEARING INDIVIDUALLY, I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO, AND WE HAVE GOT A LITTLE TIME IN BETWEEN TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING AND INVITE THE PUBLIC TO HERE, AND HERE ARE DELIBERATION ON IT, OKAY? >> SURE. >> META-MAYOR? THIS IS A FOLLOW-UP, I THINK COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON , COMMISSIONER GAINES -- I AM -- AT THE CORE ISSUE HERE, THERE NEEDS TO BE A CHANGE, IN MY OPINION, AS CITY MANAGERS ABILITIES TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS, RINGS OF THIS [01:50:01] NATURE, AWARD, MAKE DEALS, AWARD CONTRACTS WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF LEGAL REVIEW, ET CETERA, WHATEVER WAS HAPPENING, NEEDS TO STOP. AND THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, DOES THAT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY MANAGERS DICTATED SPECIFICALLY BY THE CHARTER OR DOES THIS BODY HAVE THE ABILITY TO LIMIT THOSE ABILITIES? TO COMMIT THE CITY TO CONTRACTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY LEGAL, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, WHAT ABILITY DOES THIS BODY HAVE TO FIX THAT? >> IT'S A COMBINATION OF CHARTER AND CODE. AND PROCUREMENT CODES SPECIFICALLY, SO WITH A COMBINATION OF BOTH OF THOSE THAT WOULD AFFECT HOW THAT FLOWS. >> I THINK THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY. SO, IS THIS OUTSIDE LAW FIRM , IN YOUR OPINION, CAPABLE OF PRODUCING REGULATIONS ON THAT FRONT AS WELL? >> YES, SIR. >> I DON'T WANT TO SEE US SITTING HERE DOING THIS AGAIN BECAUSE CONTRACTS ARE BEING GIVEN OUT THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA WAS INCLUDED IN THEM, CITY ATTORNEY HAS NOT EVEN BEEN CONSULTED, AND WE ARE SIGNING CONTRACTS AND COMMITTING THE CITY TO THINGS WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WAS GOING ON. THIS BODY DOES NOT KNOW. THAT NEEDS TO STOP. AFFECTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SO, I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE WOULD EXPAND THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL'S REVIEW OF THIS TO LOOK AT CITY MANAGER RESPONSIBILITIES, WHAT FALLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THIS BODY, TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE CODE CHANGES ? I GET IT, WE CAN'T CHANGE THE CHARTER, BUT CODE WOULD FALL CLEARLY UNDER OUR CONTROL. AND I AM VERY, VERY CONCERNED. I ACTUALLY SAID THIS WHEN THE REVIEWS TOOK PLACE, IS I AM DONE WITH CONTRACTS BEING LET OUT THAT ARE NOT BEING REVIEWED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? THIS MAKES NO SENSE TO ME AT ALL. SO, IT NEEDS TO STOP, AND IT NEEDS TO STOP NOW. SO, I KNOW MS. COX'S POSITION ON THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT, SHE'S ENGAGED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ON A REGULAR BASIS. I HAVE NO CONCERNS ON THAT LEVEL. BUT WE NOT MAY BE SITTING HERE, JEREMIAH IS NOT GOING TO BE SITTING HERE IN 90 DAYS, IT COULD BE OTHERS WHO ARE GONE. WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE GONE AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WE NEED TO FIX THIS ON OUR WATCH RIGHT NOW, THE CITY MANAGER SIMPLY HAS TOO MUCH AUTHORITY, TOO MUCH LATITUDE, WITHOUT CONSULTING THIS BODY. THAT IS MY POSITION ON IT. >> YES, SIR? >> SO, EARLIER I MENTIONED ABOUT PROCUREMENT POLICIES AND REVIEWS AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURE. A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, WE EXPANDED THE CAPACITY OF APPROVALS FOR THE CITY MANAGER, MAYBE EVEN SOME DEPARTMENT HEADS, I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE, BUT I KNOW IT INCREASED. THE CITY MANAGER ONLY HAD AN APPROVAL LIMIT OF $10,000. THAT DIDN'T EVEN JIVE WITH INFLATION. YOU COULDN'T EVEN GO OUT AND GET A CONCRETE TRUCK, YOU KNOW? OR MULTIPLE. SO, IT DIDN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE. SO, WE EXPANDED IT TO 50,000. I THINK SOME DEPARTMENT HEADS HAD MORE -- YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SPECIFICALLY CONTRACTS. AND YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. SO, SOME IMITATIONS OVER THE YEARS HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S ANYTHING EXCEEDING -- IF IT'S RELATED TO A CONTRACT, NUMBER ONE, GOES THROUGH LEGAL, GOES THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS, COMES TO COMMISSION, THEN YOU SET A LIMIT -- I MEAN A BASIS, A BASELINE, IF IT EXCEEDS 25,000, EXCEEDS 50,000, IT IS MANDATORY IT COMES TO THIS COMMISSION FOR REVOCATION. AS A CONTRACT. I AM TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC CONTRACTS, NOT JUST AN ARBITRARY PURCHASE. SOME OF THOSE ARE IN PROCUREMENT. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT READS EXACTLY. THERE'S A LOT READING THAT WHEN I REVIEW THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT I AM WITH YOU. I AM EXACTLY -- YOU ARE EXACTLY ON POINT. I WILL TELL YOU, TOO, THAT THIS BODY, THIS COMMISSION, I MEAN, ONE OF THE IDEAS IS -- WHEN A CONTRACT IS ON THE AGENDA, I MIGHT JUST START ASKING THE QUESTION, DID IT GET REVIEWED BY LEGAL BEFORE IT GOT HERE? IF IT DID NOT, PULL THE AGENDA, POSTPONE IT -- DONE DEAL. SO, WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY AND POWER. AND I AM PRETTY SURE -- I KNOW MS. COX IS LISTENING. >> I CAN WEIGH IN ON THAT, MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. EVERY CONTRACT GOES THROUGH LEGAL. THEN GETTING REVIEWED BY LEGAL ISN'T REALLY THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE BEFORE US. IT'S ILLEGAL BEING INVOLVED ON THE FRONT END WITH NEGOTIATION TO THE CONTRACT WHICH HAS NOT OCCURRED. SO, IN ALL HONESTY, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AS MUCH A POLICY PROBLEM AS MUCH AS IT IS A COMMUNICATION PROBLEM. AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE REALLY NEED TO WORK ON IS OUR COMMUNICATION, OUR COMMUNICATION AMONG STAFF , STAFF COMMUNICATION WITH YOU AS A BODY AS WELL, AND I THINK THAT'S -- THAT'S WHERE OUR SHORTCOMING IS. ALL CONTRACTS ARE REVIEWED BY LEGAL, NOTHING IS EVER GOING TO COME BEFORE THIS BODY -- BECAUSE WE WON'T LET IT -- WE WON'T LET IT HAPPEN ON THE AGENDA. THAT'S WHERE YOU WILL SEE MEMOS [01:55:03] ATTACHED TO EVERY AGENDA ITEM. WE DON'T ALLOW THAT TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT WHEN YOUR CITY ATTORNEY IS REVIEWING SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY FOR FORM AND CORRECTNESS, NOT NECESSARILY THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT, AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE, YOU KNOW -- >> THE INTENT. THAT'S WHERE WE HAD CHALLENGES, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE OFF WORKING, CUTTING A DEAL, YOU ARE DOING NEGOTIATION, AND THEN YOU COME BACK AND SAY, MS. HEDGES, DROP THE CONTRACT WHEN SHE WASN'T INVOLVED ON THE FRONT END. I KNOW THAT HAS CAUSED FRICTION. THAT HAS CAUSED PROBLEMS. THAT HAS CAUSED OUR CONTRACTS NOT TO TRULY CAPTURE THE ESSENCE OF WHAT THE INTENT WAS, AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WILL CHANGE, YOU KNOW, UNDER MY LEADERSHIP, I AM NOT A CONTRACT NEGOTIATOR. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE ATTORNEYS FOR. SHE GETS PAID VERY WELL TO DO THAT, YOU KNOW? WE ARE GOING TO UTILIZE THOSE SERVICES. SO, I THINK, LIKE I SAID, IT'S A COMMUNE OCCASION ISSUE WE HAVE, WE ARE GOING TO BE WORKING ON THROUGHOUT THE ORGANIZATION, WE ARE VERY SIDELOAD AND HOW WE DO THINGS AROUND HERE, YOU KNOW, I CAN GIVE YOU 1 MILLION EXAMPLES THAT JUST KIND OF BLOW ME OUT OF THE WATER, BUT -- BUT THAT IS SOMETHING I BELIEVE OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OUR STAFF AND OUR TEAM IS GOING TO WORK VERY HARD TO DO BECAUSE WE ALL WANT TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE. WE ALL WANT TO LOOK GOOD. WE DON'T LIKE WHEN THINGS GO SIDEWAYS BECAUSE WE ALL LOOK BAD, YOU LOOK BAD, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO SEE. BUT IT TAKES COMMUNICATION, AND IT TAKES US WORKING TOGETHER AS A TEAM, AND THAT IS WHAT I HOPE TO BE ABLE TO BRING TO YOU. >> SO, CAN WE ASSIGN THIS TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND DEAL WITH CODE ISSUES NOW? IS THAT POSSIBLE? >> THE CODE ISSUES RELATED TO PROCUREMENT? >> SITTING MANAGERS ABILITY TO PROCUREMENT -- >> THAT IS PART OF THE CODE, IT IS PART OF OUR POLICY MANUAL. THE ONE COMMISSIONER JEREMIAH JOHNSON MENTIONED IS 50,000 FOR THE CITY MANAGERS PROCUREMENT ABILITIES , SO, ONE OF THE THINGS I WILL ASK THEM IF THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL COMPARED TO OTHER STUDIES THEY HAVE DEALT WITH, BUT, AS MS. COX SAID, ANY CONTRACT COMES BEFORE YOU. ANYTHING ABOVE 50,000 OR WHATEVER REASON ELSE IS COMING TO YOU, THAT DOES COME TO ME FOR FORM AND CORRECTNESS. THOSE ARE BEING REVIEWED FOR LEGALITY OF WHAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THEM. BUT RELATED TO THE LIMITS, I CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THEM ABOUT THOSE AND ANY SORT OF FLOW RULES THAT NEED TO BE PUT INTO THE CODE AND/OR OUR MANUAL. >> I'M NOT LOOKING FOR LEGAL TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE INTENT OF THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE NEGOTIATIONS. LEGALESE FALLS CLEARLY WITHIN HER DEPARTMENT, THE PROCUREMENT CAP IS SPECIFIC. I AM MORE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT KIND OF DEALS ARE BEING MADE OUT THERE? IS THAT WHAT THIS BODY WANTS? IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF CITIZENS OF FORT PIERCE? THAT'S MY CONCERN. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO LASSO THAT IN TO FIX THAT, YOU KNOW, SAYING, WE WILL TRADE YOU THIS PIECE OF LAND TO DO THIS, THAT WORKS OUT WELL, OR WE ARE GOING TO PUT BRIGHT LINE STATION OVER HERE, WE NEED SOME BUILDINGS, I'M GOING TO BUY YOUR BUILDINGS, COME UP WITH A NUMBER FOR ME, YOU KNOW, THAT TYPE OF THING REALLY CONCERNS ME THAT THE INTENTION OF THAT COMMENTARY IS NOT BEING ADDRESSED OR REVIEWED BY ANYBODY. THAT LATITUDE OF THAT ABILITY, OR THAT ASSUMED ABILITY CONCERNS ME. AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT FALLS INTO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. I AM NOT SURE. IT FALLS BACK TO US, ULTIMATELY. THAT IS MY CONCERN, IS YOU ARE OUT THERE MAKING DEALS ARBITRARILY, POTENTIALLY, THAT, IN YOUR OPINION MIGHT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY, IN THIS GROUP'S OPINION MIGHT NOT BE, THERE IS NO CHECKS AND BALANCES THERE AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING. THAT IS MY CONCERN. MAYBE IT'S NOT PROPERLY FOUNDED, BUT THAT'S WHERE I AM GOING WITH THAT. SO -- >> META-MAYOR, SO, I'M GOING TO SAY THIS, COMMISSIONER. THERE ARE SOME PARTS TO THAT I AM DISAGREEING WITH. WE HIGHER A CEO TO RUN THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF OUR CITY. AND WE GAVE -- AND SHAME ON US IF WE HAVE NOT REVIEWED AND LOOKED AT PROCEDURES, PROCESSES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. THAT IS, AS A POLICYMAKER, THAT IS OUR THING TO -- IF WE DETECTED THAT, TO BRING IT FORTH IN THIS COMMISSION AND ADDRESS THAT, AND EXACTLY WHY I HAVE ASKED FOR THIS NEXT SIXTY-DAY INVESTIGATION FOR SOMEBODY UP HERE TO COME AND START TALKING TO US ABOUT WHAT'S IN OUR POLICIES BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW. >> I WOULD WAIT FOR THAT. >> WE DON'T KNOW. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE SIT AND READ EACH AND EVERY DAY. WE ADDRESS IT WHEN IT COMES. WE HIRED A PROFESSIONAL TO RUN OUR CITY. WE HAVE THREE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICES. THE CEO RUNS THE CITY. [02:00:02] THE CLERK, AND OUR ATTORNEY. AND WE ALLOW -- RELY ON THEIR PROFESSIONALISM AND ABILITY TO FILTER BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND PERCEPTION THERE, OUR EXPERTISE OF SITTING HERE AND THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION WE HAVE TO TAKE ON TO MAKE DECISIONS TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS , AND RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND SO, I JUST -- YOU KNOW, WITH THAT PASSION, COMMISSIONER, WHAT I DID HEAR FROM THE ATTORNEY IS -- AND I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THIS -- IS NO CONTRACT THAT HAS COME BEFORE US HAS NOT AT LEAST BEEN REVIEWED BY OUR ATTORNEY. WHAT I DID HERE, AND WHERE THE CONCERN MAY HAVE SOME CONCERN, BUT WE HAD ALSO TRUST THAT WE HIRED A CITY MANAGER TO RUN OUR CITY, IT'S HIS JOB TO GO OUT AND EXECUTE ON WHAT WE PUT ON THAT LIST. GET US A BRIGHT LINE STATION. THAT WAS THE COMMISSION VISION OF US, TO BRING THAT FORTH. HE WENT OUT AND DID THIS, DEVELOPED THIS AREA, DEVELOP THIS, DEVELOP THIS, HE DID THAT. NOW, WHAT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IS, DID HE VIOLATE OR TAKE SHORTCUTS NOW THAT PUT THIS SITUATION -- >> I'M COMING TO GET A REPORT. >> THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY. THANK YOU. >> AND TO REITERATE, THERE ARE THREE PEOPLE THAT REPORT TO US. >> THREE. >> AND THE REST OF THE STAFF REPORTS TO THE CITY MANAGER. AND SO, THAT PUTS THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US TO HIRE THE RIGHT PROFESSIONALS, AND THE PROFESSIONALS TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND FOR US TO BE AWARE, AND QUESTIONING. >> MAYOR? >> YES, SIR. >> IN ADDITION TO THAT, I WANTED TO SHARE, JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE ALREADY KNOW WE HAVE APPROVED AND VOTED ON OUR BUDGET, BUT, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, MADE A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF, AND IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. AND IT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT NUMEROUS TIMES FOR THIS EXACT REASON, RIGHT? SO, THERE ARE MANY PARTS AND PIECESS OF CONTRACTS, ALL CONTRACTS COME TO THIS COMMISSION. WE -- WE GET TO VOTE ON THE CONTRACTS, RIGHT? I SAY ALL, IT'S PROBABLY -- IS THERE -- IS THERE 1% THAT DOESN'T COME? >> THERE ARE SOME THAT DON'T COVER BASED ON -- >> SOME OF THE RULES IN THE EXPENDITURES. >> YES, SIR. >> SO, BASED ON THE RULES AND POLICY MANUAL, THE CONTRACTS COME FORWARD BASED ON THE PARAMETERS THAT WE APPROVE -- A PREVIOUS COMMISSION HAS APPROVED, WHOEVER HAS APPROVED IT, SITTING AT THIS TABLE AS OF FIVE, SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE ABILITY, YOU KNOW, THE RFPS, THE RFQ'S, THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, WE JUST APPROVED A LAUNDRY LIST OF THOSE IN A PUBLIC MEETING YESTERDAY. YOU KNOW, FOR CONTINUING SERVICES, SO, THESE ARE ALL AGREEMENTS THAT HELP THE OPERATION AND RUN THE CITY, SO, YOU KNOW, PARTS OF THE CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF IN ADDITION TO A PUBLIC SETTING HERE, YOU KNOW, WE GET A BITE OF THE APPLE IS MY POINT. COMMISSIONER, YOU ARE RIGHT ON. I CAN TELL YOU, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT GOVERNMENT ENTITY HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN A NUMBER OF THEM -- JUST WATCHING FROM THE OUTSIDE, THERE IS ALWAYS A PROJECT MANAGER, QUOTE, PROJECT MANAGER, A LIAISON, A PERSON THAT OWNERS REPRESENT, THAT'S WHAT I LIKE TO CALL THEM, OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE IN THAT DEPARTMENT HEADING UP INITIATIVES BASED ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN OF THE CITY COMMISSION IN THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE MOVING FORWARD FOR AN OPPORTUNITY , IT MOVES THROUGH A PROCESS, IT GOES THROUGH THE DOCUMENT PROCESS AND THEN GOES THROUGH POSSIBLE EVALUATION AND THEN COME TO THE COMMISSION AT SOME POINT. IF THE POLICY DICTATES THAT IT COMES HERE. SO, MY POINT IS, LEGAL, WHAT [6. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Any person who wishes to comment on any subject may be heard at this time. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less, as directed by the Mayor, as this section of the Agenda is limited to thirty minutes. The City Commission will not be able to take any official actions under Comments from the Public. Speakers will address the Mayor, Commissioners, and the Public with respect. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated.] YOU ARE SAYING, COMMISSIONER, SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE EARLY STEP. SO WE DON'T TRIP AND FALL. THAT'S ALL YOU ARE ASKING FOR, IT COULD BE VERY EASY, VERY ATTAINABLE, WITH THE PROCESSES THAT WE ARE CREATING OR REVAMPING. >> OKAY. ARE WE -- ARE WE DONE DISCUSSING? OKAY. SO, NOW IT'S TIME FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, AND SO, ANYONE WHO SPEAK, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. - >> COMMISSIONER, >> WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, SIR, PLEASE? STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE! >> MY NAME IS REGINALD BERNARD SESSION. I RESIDE AT 1304 NORTH 22ND STREET, FT. PIERCE, FLORIDA. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THERE IS SOMETHING ALREADY IN PLACE, IS CALLED THE FLORIDA STATE LAW. AND IT IS OPERATED BY THE CRIMINAL STATUTES. AND THAT IS ULTIMATELY WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS SITUATION. SO, I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THERE IS NO NEED TO ORCHESTRATE ANY TYPE OF POLICY, OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE BECAUSE THERE IS SMETHING IN PLACE. THAT IS WHY WE ARE ALL HERE TODAY. SO, IT STOPPED. IT GOT NIPPED IN THE [02:05:02] BUD, NOT TRYING TO IMPLY THE MAN'S INNOCENCE OR GUILT, BUT THERE IS SOMETHING IN PLACE ALREADY. ON THE ISSUE OF -- I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE JUDGE PLACING RESTRICTIONS ON THE BOND OF THE DEFENDANT. AND THOSE RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN THAT HE HAS NO CONTACT WITH INDIVIDUALS . THAT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT HE HAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT CO-MINGLING, HE HAS CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE IS A THREAT TO THEM, BUT, I WANTED TO PLACE THAT ON YOUR MIND. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE -- LIKE YOU SAY, LOOKED INTO, BUT FOOD FOR THOUGHT. BECAUSE HE MADE THAT DECISION FOR A REASON. SO, THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT HE HAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT, HE HAS A VERY VALID REASON, THAT'S WHY HE PUT THAT BOND RESTRICTION IN PLACE. I HEARD TONIGHT, THE COMMISSIONER INDICATED THAT HE FELT THAT A BOARD WAS THE PROPER -- THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR A BOARD TO MAKE A DECISION REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. LET'S KEEP THE POLITICS OUT OF THIS. BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, THAT'S WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LEAD TO. WE HAVE CRIMINAL STATUTES AGAIN, THAT WILL DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS CASE, AND TO BRING THE POLITICS INTO THIS AT THIS POINT, A HOCUS-POCUS BOARD , IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RELY ON WHETHER THE MAN IS INNOCENT OR GUILTY, IT'S GOING TO BE THIS POSITION OF THE CASE THAT WILL HAVE SOME IMPACT ON YOUR DECISIONS, AND JUST BE -- DON'T BE PREMATURE IN MAKING DECISIONS UNTIL, AGAIN, THIS IS DETERMINED BY THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SO, AND ANOTHER THING, COMMISSIONER, WHEN YOU MAKE THAT POINT, IT'S INDICATD TO ME THAT YOU SAY THAT WE NEED TO RELY ON THE PROFESSIONALS, BUT THE OTHER NIGHT WHEN I BROUGHT UP THE INDIVIDUAL BEING KILLED -- >> YOU NEED TO WIND IT UP, PLEASE. >> IT INDICATED IN THAT SITUATION, THAT WE NEED TO RELY ON THE PROFESSIONALS, LET'S TAKE THAT SAME AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THIS SITUATION. >> THANK YOU, SIR. AND YOU, SIR. WHO IS NEXT? WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NEXT? >> DRINK SOME WATER. >> SEEING NO ONE ELSE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. AND WE HAVE ADJOURNMENT UNLESS ANY COMMISSIONER WANTS TO SAY ANYTHING AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT. READY TO ADJOURN? * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.